Py el) OS ah , emerge 


nbs Sea tll elcid etc ages Reclianiaaee nai Rascal Mec Haas shi marlin aha ts wD ADT TNT Tat 


Cee Arann nee tmp ememn 


tte nm 


raiilelaiman 


- 


te er anil 


eed 


Pa ae 
Men ee 
Ad ttc ali all i 


‘Sea 


DUKE 
UNIVERSITY 


DIVINITY SCHOOL 
LIBRARY 


MANUAL 


OF 


SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY. 


AND 


CHRISTIAN ETHICS. 


BY 
ALVAH HOVEY, D.D.,LL.D., 
—_ 


PRESIDENT OF NEWTON THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTION, 


PHILADELPHIA: 
AMERICAN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY, 


1420 CHESTNUT STREET. 
4 BEACON STREET, Boston; 71 RANDOLPH STREET, CHICAGO; 


9 Murray STREET, New York; 209 N. SixtH Street, St. Louis, 


COPYRIGHT —- 1877 — BY ALVAH HOVEY. 


_B 
; j tte 
Pi 4 ey AY 
\ 
f a * 
« 
, / 
* . / 
. A 
* 
Mi eo 
bs ! 
i 
; . 
‘ bs x 
= . 
- 
- 


4. 


PREFACE. 


It is proper for me to state that this Manual is intended, 
first of all, for the use of students under my instruction; and 
that the brief treatment which.is here given to many topics 
is only meant to prepare the way for ample discussion in the 
class-room. 

This primary design of the book is also my apology for 
quoting several Latin sentences without translation; for 
re-translating a few passages of the New Testament; for 
giving in some instances the Greek original of an important 
word or clause; for referring to theological works in foreign 
languages; and for calling attention to published articles or 
minor treatises of my own, which exhibit a little more fully 
than does this Manual, the considerations that favor some of 
the views here presented. 

The same circumstance has had more or less influence 
upon the manner in which certain difficult questions are 
treated; since my aim in teaching is to secure candid and 
thorough study on the part of those under my care, rather 
than to give them, in a dogmatic spirit, the results of my 
own investigation. 

Whether a Manual of Theology and Ethics, prepared in 


this way, will be of any service to ministers of the gospel, 


iv Preface. 


teachers of Bible-classes, or other thoughtful Christians, 
must depend in a great measure upon the care with which 
they examine the biblical passages referred to in the volume. 
For, if the work has any merit, this merit will be found in its 
orderly statement of the evidence which goes to prove that 
the Scriptures are a trustworthy revelation of the divine 
will; and in its erderly presentation of the blessed truths 
which are taught by the Scriptures. In other words, the 
_ treatment of nearly every topic is biblical, rather than philo- 
sophical, and will be found useful in proportion to the care 
with which the Bible is consulted, 


ALVAH HOVEY., 
NEWTON CENTRE, July 2, 1877. 


INDEX. 


SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY. 


PAGES. 


Ae AO TNO THEO Neatreg fo) Pench Mak mx iiPaiinibs Yell gi a) ey. WA Pe ney, O20 


Definitions, 9-11; Assumptions, 12-13; Cautions, 13-14; Qualifi- 
cations, 14-15; Benefits, 15-16; Topics, 17-18; Writers, 18-26. 


PE REIS TENCE OP GOD; S54) ey a se ve 2 42 


Preliminary Observations, 27-28; Ten Propositions Stated and 
Defended, 28-40; Theistic Arguments in the Usual Form, 40-42. 


(Eur PEIEEE VM RONMNGOD,, « '. vs 4c shee) e's fee ete, (43 —87 


Preliminary Considerations, 43-45; The New Testament History 
Credible, 45-53; Christ Jesus Infallible, 53-67; Promise of Inspi- 
ration to the Apostles, 67-73; The Old Testament Endorsed by 
Christ and his Apostles, 73-77; The Inspiration of the Sacred 
Writers Different from that of Ordinary Christians, 78-79; It made 
them Infallible Teachers, 79-81; Nature of their Inspiration, 81; 
Sources of their Knowledge, 82-83; Objections to this Doctrine ~ 
Considered, 83-87. 


Dee ERMECTION; OR? GOD! 656 Re) ify ee 88-107 


Modes of God’s Existence, 88-92; Attributes of God, 92-96; Pur- 
pose of God, 96-99; Creation by God through the Word, 99-101; 
Preservation by God through the Word, to1—102; Providence of 
God in Christ, 102-104; Angels and their Service, 105-117. 


vi Index. 


THE DOCTRINE OF MAN, .. 94 5 54 6 « « = ne 


The Unity of Mankind, 118-119; The Essential Elements of 
Human Nature, 120-123; The Endless Existence of Man, 123- 
125; The Moral Constitution of Man, 125-133; The Reality of 
Sin in Mankind, 133-136; The Nature of Sin in Mankind, 136-140; 
The Extent of Sin in Mankind, 140-143; The Degree of Sin in 
Mankind, 143-144; The Accountability of Men for their Sinful- 
ness, 144-151; The Penalty of Sin, 151-168; The Results of Sin, 
168 — 170. 


~ 
THE DOCTRINE OF SALVATION, . 3... © 3) 


The Person of Christ: —The Deity of Christ, 171-190; The Humanity 
of Christ, 190-192; The Personal Oneness of. Christ, 192-194} 
Effect of the Incarnation on the Higher Nature of Christ, 194-204; 
Effect of the Incarnation on the Lower Nature of Christ, 204-207; 
The Work of Christ : —Propitiation by Jesus Christ, 207-230; Rev- 
elation by Christ, 231-234; Government by Christ, 234; Zhe Person 
of the Holy Spirit: — Deity of the Holy Spirit, 235; Personality of 
the Holy Spirit, 235-240; Identity of the Holy Spirit and the Spirit 
of God, 240-241; Work of the Holy Spirit, 241-242; Doctrine of 
Redemption: — The Nature of Regeneration, 242—246; The Author 
of Regeneration, 246-247; Relation of Christian Truth to Regener- 
ation, 247-252; The Error of Baptismal Regeneration, 252-2565*" 
Antecedents on the Part of Man to Regeneration, 256-258; The i 3 
Doctrine of Election, 258-261; First Fruits of Regeneration in ~ F 
Experience, 261-263; The Nature of Justification, 264-266; The 
Author of Justification, 266-267; The Ground of Justification, 
267 - 268; The Condition of Justification, 268-269; Reasonableness 
of this Doctrine, 269-272; Sanctification, 273-274; The Nature of 
Sanctification, 274; The Author of Sanctification, 274-276; The 
Means of Sanctification: A. Providential Discipline, 276-278; B. 
Religious Truth, 278-279; C. Christian Action, 279-285 ; D. Church 
Life, 286-288; E. The Lord’s Day, 288-292; The Period of Sanctifi- 
cation, 292-295; The Certainty of Sanctification, 295-299. 


Index. Vil 


CHRISTIAN CHURCHES AND ORDINANCES, . . . . « 300-344 


Christian Churches, 300-312; Christian Ordinances: Baptism, 312- 
333; The External Rite, 313-320; The Significance of the Rite, 
320-323; The Subjects of the Rite, 323-326; Infant Baptism 
Unscriptural, 326-330; Relation of the Rite to John’s Baptism, 
330-333; The Lord’s Supper, 333-344; The External Rite, 334- 
335; The Import of the Ordinance, 335-337; The Proper Communi- 


cants, 337 — 344- 


DocTRINE OF THE Last THINGS,. . ...... 345-364 


Natural Death, 345; The Intermediate State, 345-349; The Second 
Advent of Christ, 349-351; The Resurrection of the Dead, 351- 
354; The Last Judgment, 354-358; The Final State of Unbelievers, 
358-362; The Final State of Believers, 362-364. 


CHRISTIAN ETHICS. 


PAGES. 
ITRODUCTION, « 2.2 © 2 0 600s = « ) sn 


Definition and Position of the Science, 365; Ground of Right, 
365-369; Rule of Right, 369-371; Imperfection of Man’s Ethical 
Knowledge, 371; Consequences of this Imperfection, 371 —372. 


CHRISTIAN CONDUCT WITH REFERENCE TO GoD, . . 373-376 


Supreme Love to God, 373; His Honor the Highest Motive to 
Action, 373-374; Unceasing Worship or Prayer, 374; The Con- «~ 
duct of Public Worship, 374-375; Especially Prayer, 375-376. 


CHRISTIAN CONDUCT WITH REFERENCE TO ONE'S SELF, 376-381 


Inference from the Second Command, Love to Man, 376; Moral 
Nature of Man, or Conscience, 376-377; Culture of Conscience, 
377-378; Culture of Devout Affections, 379; Culture of Mental 
Powers, 379-380; Of the Senses and Sensibilities, is Of the 
Bodily Powers, 380-381. 


CHRISTIAN CONDUCT WITH REFERENCE TO OTHER MEN, 381-416 


Examination of the Golden Rule, 381-383; Christian Conduct in 
Church Relations, 383-389; In Domestic Relations, 389-393; 
Duties of Masters to Servants, 393-399; And of Servants to Mas- 
ters, 399-400; In Social Relations, 401-403; In Business Relations, 
403-406; Appendix on the Use of Money, 406-410; And in Civil 
Relations, 410-411; As Subjects of Government, 411-412; As Sup- 
porters.of Government, 412; As Officers of Government, 412— 
415; As Reformers of Government, 415-416. 


y 
\ 


‘ 


| MANUAL OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY, 


INTRODUCTION. ‘ 


I. DEFINITIONS. 


In its primary and strict sense, Theology is the science of 
God; that is, an orderly exposition of the evidences of the 
existence and perfection of God. Used in this sense, it is the 
name of one Division of Systematic Theology, and is often 
called Theology Proper. But the term is also used as a sub- 
stitute for the expression, Systematic Theology, and will be 
so employed in this Manual.’ 

"Systematic Theology ts a scientific exposition of the various 
doctrines of the Christian religion, showing their true character, 
their proper foundations, and their mutual inter-dependence. + 

It presupposes a knowledge of Biblical Theology; it in- 
cludes Theology Proper and Apologetic Theology in part; 
and it provides materials for both Polemical and Comparative 
Theology. ; 

Religion, equivalent to veligio, from relegere or religare, is, 
first, piety, or a reverent and dutiful spirit towards God, 
manifested in conduct; and, secondly, the means by which 
this spirit is originated, sustained, and expressed, or the 
facts, principles, rites, and duties which are believed, observed, 


1 Suicer’s “Thesaurus,” sub voce Seodoyia ; Turretin (F.) “Theologia,” &c. 
I. 1. i. q. i.; Gerhard (J.) “Loci Theologici;” I. Proem.; Fleming (W.) “Vo- 
cabulary of Philosophy,” s. v. Theology; Herzog “ Real-Encyklopadie,” s. v. 
“Theologie;” Thomas Aquinas, “Summa,” Pt. I. q. i. art. 2. “A Deo 
docetur, Deum docet, et ad Deum ducit.” 

2 “Bib. Sac.” I. 178-217, 332-367, 552-578, 726-735; “Am. Bib. Repos.” for 
1845, 457 sq.; “Chr. Rev.” xx. 492-506; xxi. 66-82; Hagenbach (K. R.) 
“Theologische Encyklopadie;” Herzog *‘ Real-Encyklopiadie,” s. v. “ Dogmatik.” 


fe) Manual of Systematic Theology 


or performed by him who has this spirit. In the definition of 
systematic theology, given above, it has of course the second 
meaning.’ 


Biblical Theology is used to sigrfify a critical exposition of . 


the religious doctrines taught by the successive writers of 
the Bible, or, in other words, a history of the development 
of religious doctrine among the Jews. It does not assume 
the inspiration of the seen: nor the substantial unity of 
their teaching.? 

Apologetic Theology is a scientific exposition of the evi- 
dences of Christianity. It pre-supposes a good knowledge of 
the Bible, and of the History of the Christian religion, if not 
of systematic theology. But it may be included in systematic 
theology, as defined above, since the “foundations” of belief 
in the doctrines of the Christian religion are to be examined 
in systematic theology.’ 

Polemical Theology is distinguished from Apologetic, by 
being, on the one hand, more aggressive, and, on- the other, 
more denominational. It is not a defence of the Christian 
religion as a whole, but rather an attack upon certain alleged 
perversions of it.* 

Comparative Theology is an exposition of the points of 
agreement and of difference between the great systems of 
religious belief and worship which prevail among men, with a 


1 Cicero (M. T.) “De Nat. Deor.” ii. 28; Lactantius (F.) “Inst. Div.” iv. 28 ; 
Miiller (J. G.) in “Studien und Kritiken” for 1835; Herzog “Real-Encyklo- 
padie,” s. v. “ Religion; ” Bib. Sac. ix. 374-417; “Jahrbiicher fiir deutsche Theolo- 
gie und Kirche,” viii. S.715 ff.; x.S. 718 ff.; xi, S. 254 ff.; Redslob (G. M.) “Zur 
Etymologie des Wortes Religio, ” in St. u. Kr. 1841, 43. 

2 Herzog “ Real-Encyk.” s. v. ii. S. 219 sq.; Reuss (E.) “History of Chris- 
tian Theology in the Apostolic Age; ” Schmid (C. F.) “ Theology of the N. T.;” 
Messner (H.) “Die Lehre der Apostel;” Weiss (B.) “Theologie des N. T.;” 
Oehler (G. F.) “Theology of the Old Test.;” Schultz (H.) “ Alttestamentliche 
Theologie ; ” “‘ Presby. Quarterly, and Princeton Rev.” for 1877, 5 sq. 

3 Ebrard (J. H. A.) “ Apologetik, oder Wissenschaftliche Rechtfertigung des 
Christenthums ;” and works noticed in Part Second. 

4 All controversial works of Roman Catholics against Protestants, Pedobap- 
tists against Baptists, Unitarians against Trinitarians, and vice versa, are embraced 
in this great branch of theology. 


Introduction. Tl 


view to ascertaining their origin, credibility, and influence. 
This. science is yet in its infancy.! 
In this treatise, all the doctrines of the Christian religion 
are supposed to be drawn from the Scriptures, and set forth 
in their logical order; so that they may stand before the 
mind as a system of religious truth. 

By limiting the doctrines of Christian theology to those 
which are either plainly taught or implied by the Scriptures, 
we (a) pay suitable respect to the Word of God; (4) guard 
ourselves from the danger of interpreting that Word into 
harmony with our independent speculations; (c) habituate 
our minds to a method of discussing Christian doctrines, 
safe in itself and adapted to the pulpit; (¢) obtain the clear- 
est and deepest views of religious truth; and (ce) derive the 
greatest spiritual benefit from our studies. 

The possibility of showing the mutual consistency and 
inter-dependence of the doctrines of the Christian religion 
may be said to depend (a) upon their truth, for truth is 
always self-consistent ; (6) upon the proportion of the re- 
vealed to the unrevealed doctrines of the system; (¢) upon 
the clearness with which the connection between different 
parts of the system is revealed; and (d) upon the kind of 
affinity which exists between natural and revealed religion. 
Many facts here put together are revealed but in part, and 
therefore their agreement with one another can be seen but 
in part. A perfect system pre-supposes perfect knowledge 
in him who describes it. 

Some degree of prominence must be given to the special 
theological questions of the day, though it is necessary to 
guard against the mistake of supposing that the leading 
questions of to-day will be such to the end of time. One is 
more apt to lay undue stress upon that which now agitates 
society than to withhold from it fit attention. 


1 Clarke (J. F.) “The Ten Great Religions;” Moffat (J. C.) “A Comparative 
Viistory of Religions;” Hardwick (C.) “Christ and other Masters;” Miiller 
(Max) “Chips from a German Workshop ;” Legge (J.) “The Chinese Classics; ” 
Bigandet (P.) “The Life or Legend of Gaudama;” Johnson (S.) “Oriental 
Religions.” 


€ 
12 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


II. ASSUMPTIONS. 


The normal action of the mind must be trusted. For a 
denial of the general veracity of our mental action nullifies* 
itself; because we indorse the action by accepting the denial, 
since the denial itself is a mental act.' 

Evidence is that which tends to produce belief in the mind 
to-which it is offered; unless it would be better to say, it 
is that which tends to produce knowledge or belief in the 
mind. 

The value of evidence is always, therefore, to be measured 
by the power which it has to originate knowledge, or to 
produce belief in the mind of man. There is no other 
standard of its value known to mortals. Even God approaches 
men as those who can and must judge for themselves. He 
never demands faith without sufficient evidence. 

Evidence may be divided into several classes, as that which | 
is afforded (a) by primitive beliefs, judgments, and intuitions; _ 
(6) by distinct perception or recollection; and (c) by testi- 
mony or analogy.” 

Probable evidence rests upon testimony or analogy. Some 
persons reduce these to one, namely, Analogy. But this is 
scarcely correct; for the human mind seems to be naturally 
pre-disposed to accept the testimony of a fellow-man.° 

Probable evidence may be indubitable, satisfactory, or 
weak. Its force is determined by its effect on the mind, 
and is found to be of every degree, from just above zero to 
moral demonstration. 


1 Compare the remarks of Hamilton (W.) in “Philosophy of Common 
Sense,” p. 21 sq. (Edition Igy Wight.) 

2 McCosh (J.) “Intuitions of the Human Mind.” He speaks of Primitizs 
Cognitions, as of Body, Spirit, Substance, Power; of Prim. Beliefs, as of Space, 
Time, The Infinite; and of Prim. Judgments, as to Identity or Difference, the 
Whole and its Parts, &c. 

3 Gambier (J. E.) “Guide to the Study of Moral Evidence;” Butler (J.) “‘ An- 
alogy,” Pt. Il. 67 sq.; Hopkins (M.) “ Lowell Lectures on the Evidences of Chris- 
tianity,” 23 sq.; Greenleaf (S.) “A Treatise on the Law of Evidence,” Pt. I. ec. 
I, IIL, IV.; Jabrbiicher, 1867, 583 sq-; Chlebes (W.) “Uber das Verhiliniss 
von Groner und Wissen,” in St. a. Kr. 1846, S. 905 ff. 


Introduction. - 13 


As the judgment goes with the stronger probable evidence, 
so the conduct should obey the judgment and honor the evi- 
dence. Probability is the guide of life;.and the soundest 
mind is the one that can best perceive the force of probable 
evidence. ; 

: III. CAUTIONS. 


Human reason is finite, and therefore unable to compre- 
hend what is infinite. Indeed, it is unable to comprehend in 
full many objects that are strictly finite, as, for example, the 
ocean." 

Yet it can know, in part, that which is truly infinite as well 
as that which is indefinitely great. For a reality which is, 
in some respects, infinite and indefinable may be, in other. 
respects, definable. Thus, an infinite mind may be known 
as mind; that is, as intelligent, voluntary, benevolent, &c., 
but not directly as infinite. It can be classified as mind, but 
not comprehended as unlimited in power, knowledge, benevo- 
lence. 

Moreover, human reason may have convincing evidence 
that something infinite exists, though it has never compre- 
hended the infinite; just as it may have convincing evidence 
that many things exist which, though not strictly infinite, are 
known to transcend human knowledge. 

There is need of special caution in treating of the rela- 
tions of the infinite and the finite; for one of the terms is 
never fully known. Consider, for example, the fact that two 
points in space, though but an inch apart, may be made to 


~ 1 Mansel (H. L.) “ Limits of Religious Thought,” and “ Philosophy of the Con- 
ditioned; ” Spencer (H.) “First Principles of a New System of Philosophy,” 
Pt. I.; McCosh (J.) “The Intuitions of the Human Mind;” Young (J.) “ The 
Province of Reason: ” Rogers (H.) “ Reason and Faith,” “The Eclipse of Faith,” 
‘Defence of the Eclipse of Faith ;” Calderwood (H.) “ Philosophy of the Infinite ; ” 
“Bib. Sac.” VI. p. 673 sq.; “Am. Theol. Rev.” for 1860, p. I sq-—both articles 
by Prof. H. B. Smith; “Am. Presb. Rev.” for 1870, p. 1 sq., by Prof. H. N. Day; 
Boyle (R.) “On Things Above Reason,” and “On the Veneration which Man’s 
Intellect owes to God;” Hamilton (W.) “ Philosophical Testimonies to the Lim- 
itation of our Knowledge from the Limitation of our Faculties ” in “‘ Phil. Dis- 
cussions,” p. 591 sq.; Baptist Review, I. 1 sq. 


14 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


approach each other forever without meeting. Here finite 
distance is matched with infinite motion in time, and seems 
to be its equal. So, too, finite wills seem to act freely, and 
even capriciously, under an infinite will, yet without obstruct- 
ing its action. 3 

The study of theology is, throughout, a study of the rela- © 
tions of finite beings to an infinite Being; and therefore 
great caution is necessary. Better leave many blanks in the 
system than go beyond the warrant of facts. 


IV. QUALIFICATIONS. 


Mental: soundness of judgment and power of systematic 
thought.. For the questions to be considered are numerous 
and difficult; the evidence to be weighed is manifold and 
easily perverted; and a mistake at one point is sure to bring 
in darkness orerror at other points. Good sense, rather than 
genius, is needed in the study of theology.’ 

Moral: fairness of mind and deep reverence for truth. 
The doctrines of the Bible should be examined with perfect 
candor. Indifference is impossible; but docility and a love 
of truth that overcomes prejudice are within the reach of 
every honest student. “Non pigebit me, sicubi haesito, quee- 
rere; nec pudebit, sicubi erro, discere. Quisque audit hoc 
vel legit, ubi pariter certus est, pergat mecum; ubi pariter 
heesitat, quaerat mecum; ubi errorem suum cognoscit, redeat 
ad me;. ubi meum, revocet me.” (Aug. De Trin. 1, 2.) 

Religious: faith, love, humility, docility, fruits of the pres- 
ence of the Spirit of God in the soul. The importance of 
these is admitted by,nearly all theologians. ‘The Scrip- 
tures,” says Andrew Fuller, “exhibit a beauty and a life 
utterly incomprehensible to an unholy mind.” “We must 
love divine things in order to know them,” says Pascal. Says. 
Bernard of Clairvaux, “Tantum Deus cognoscitur quantum 


1 Goddard (C.) “The Mental Condition necessary to due Inquiry into Reli- 
gious Evidence;” “ Duties of a Theologian,” in “ Bib, Repos.” for 1839, p. 347: 


sq: 


Introduction. 15 


diligitur; orando facilius quam -disputando et dignius Deus 
cognoscitur et invenitur;” and Anselm, “Credo ut intelligam” 
(cf. “Cur Deus Homo?” c, 25). See JoHN vii. 17; 1 Cor. ii. 
Sitges Sa XX Genexix TS4, MX? 

Educational: knowledge of biblical interpretation and 
acquaintance with mental philosophy, with physical science, 
and with the history of religious thought. The first of these, 
interpretation, is far more important than either of the 
others. Hollaz mentions these conditions as pre-requisite to 
sound interpretation: (a) “Invocatio Dei, patris luminum; (4) 
Notitia idiomatis quo sacra Scriptura legitur; (¢) Attenta con- 
sideratio phrasium, scopi, antecedentium et consequentium ; 
(2) Depulsio preconceptarum opinionum et pravorum affec- 
tuum,” : 
" V. BENEFITS. 


The study of theology ought to improve and satisfy the 
mind of the student. For the mind was made for the appre- 
hension of truth as evidently as the lungs were made for the 
reception of air. Moreover, related truths belong to a sys- 
tem; they stand together and support each other. Hence a 
knowledge of their relations is required by the mind. ? 

Says Liicke: “I am of the opinion that the scientific in- 
terest which calls for systematic theology is for the most 
part different from that which calls for historical or critical 
theology. It is the systematic interest, and not the subordi- 
nate interest in the organic arrangement of given historical 


1 Edwards (B. B.) “Influence of Eminent Piety on the Intellectual Powers,” 
in “Christian Rev.” for 1840, p. 1 sq.; Luthardt (C. E.) “ Die Lehre vom freien 
Willen,” S. 388 sq.; Augustini (A.) Opera, Vol. II. p. 453, ep. 120, ed. J. P. 
Migne; Anselm “Cur Deus Homo,” I. 2; Leathes (S.) “The Witmess of the Old 
Test. to Christ,” p. 140; Miiller (J.) “The Christian Doctrine of Sin,” I. p. 178 s. 

2 Shedd (W. G. T.) “The Method and Influence of Theological Studies,” 
“Discourses and Essays,” p. 7 sq.; Sears (B.) “ An Educated Ministry,” in “ Chr. 
Rev.,”” Vol. XVIII. p. 567 sq.; Robinson (E. G.) “ Doctrine and Life,” in “Chr. 
Rey.” for 1859, p. 161 sq.; Hovey (A.) “The Study of Doctrinal Theology Use- 
ful to Pastors,” in “Chr. Rev.” 1863, p. 646 sq.; “The Christian Pastor; his 
Work, and the Needful Preparation;” Chalmers (T.) ‘Institutes of Theol 
ogy,” I. p. 353 sq-; Bonifas “The Relative Value of Christian Doctrine,” ia 
“Theological Eclectic” for 1870; Wayland (F.) “The Apostolic Ministry.” 


16 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


material, the interest in so representing the doctrines of 
Christian faith and action in their absolute truth that all 
doubt and contradiction and internal incoherence of Chris- 
tian thinking may vanish away.” 

It should also purify and protect the conscience. For the 
doctrines of Christianity are sacred: perversion of them is a 
great sin; and therefore no teacher can innocently neglect 
the best knowledge of them within his reach. To teach 
them positively, and so effectively, without doing violence to 
conscience, he must study them thoroughly, with the best 
helps within his reach. 

It should, at the same time, deepen, as well as test, his 
religious life. Some of the truths, plainly taught in the 
Scriptures, and claiming the attention of a student of the- 
ology, are fitted to try his faith and humility severely. But, 
if he bears the trial, a great blessing follows. “Light is 
sown for the righteous.” Christian knowledge is favorable 
to deep piety. Ignorance is not the mother of real devotion. 

It should make his preaching more truthful and comprehen- 
sive. A man should preach what he intelligently believes. 
Beyond that he cannot go with safety to himself or to others. 
Not only in reaching the impenitent, but also and especially 
in edifying Christians, does a knowledge of theology serve a 
minister of the gospel. 

It should both augment and improve his influence over 
others for their good. A minister’s success is equal to the 
balance of good over evil in his influence, whether that 
influence be direct or indirect. A right, as well as a deep 
impression is to be made.? 


1 Nitzsch (C. I.) “ Praktische Theologie,” III. I. S. 90 sq. 

2 “Sunt qui scire volunt eo tantum fine ut sciant, et turpis curiositas est; et 
sunt qui scire volunt ut sciantur ipsi, et turpis vanitas est; et sunt item qui scire 
volunt ut scientiam suam vendant, verbi caus, pro pecunia, pro honoribus, et 
turpis quzstus est. Sed sunt quoque qui scire volunt ut edificent, et charitas 
est; et item qui scire volunt ut zedificentur, et prudentia est.” Again: “Ut lege- 
ret intelligendi fecit cupiditas; ut intelligeret oratio impetravit; ut impetraret 
vitee sanctitas promeruit. Sic cupiat, sic oret, sic vivat qui se proficere velit.” 
St. Bernard, Sermo XXXVI. super Cant. p. 604. 


Introduction. 17 


VI. TOPICS. 


I. THe EXIsTENCE oF Gop. 
II. THE BIBLE FRom Gop. 
III. THE PERFECTION OF GoD. 
IV. THE Doctrine or MAN. 
V. THE DocTRINE OF SALVATION. 
VI. CHRISTIAN CHURCHES AND ORDINANCES. 
VII. THE Doctrine or THE Last THINGS. 


Whether this arrangement of topics is the best possible 
must be left for the present undecided. Against it, one 
objection may be raised, to wit, that the first and third 
topics belong naturally together; but, in response, it may 
be said, that the second topic is in its place, because it pre- 
supposes the first, and is pre-supposed by the third. 

The arrangement of topics given above is practically fol- 
lowed by nearly all theologians, and is adopted formally by 
many; for example, Turretin, Hodge, Miiller, Wardlaw, and 
others. 

Calvin, Marheinecke, Martensen, and others, regard all 
Christian truth as embraced in the Doctrines of the Father, 
the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The baptismal formula, and 
the early creeds may have suggested this view; but it gives 
no suitable and sufficient place to Anthropology. 

Liebner, Thomasius, Fuller, and others, would have the 
person and work of Christ embrace all Christian truth. This 
view, however, tends. to subordinate unduly the work of the 
Father and of the Holy Spirit, and to make the incarnation 
of the Word indispensable, even apart from sin. 

Oosterzee and, partly, Augustine, make the Kingdom of 
God the ruling idea of all theological truth. I. God: The 
King. II. Man: The Subject. III. Christ: The Founder 
of the Kingdom. IV. Redemption: The Character of the 
Kingdom. V. The Way of Salvation: The Law of the 
Kingdom. VI. The Church: Its Training School. VII. 
The Completion of the Kingdom. 


18 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


Hase, in “ Hutterus Redivivus,’ makes Reconciliation, 
through Christ, the regulative idea. I. The Sources: Bible 
(and Nature). II. The Object: God. III. The Subject: 
Man. IV. The Means: Christ, &c. V. The Result: Réc- 
onciliation. 


VII. WRITERS ON SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY, 


The following contains the names of a few men who dis- 
cussed particular doctrines only; but most of those men- 
tioned treated in their works of all the doctrines which they 
included in theology. 

1. ATHANASIUS was born in Alexandria about A.D. 300, 
and died there in A.D. 373. 

His doctrinal writings are the following: 1. A Discourse 
respecting the Incarnation and the Logos. 2. An Exposi- 
tion of his Faith in the Trinity. 3. A Letter on the Decrees 
of the Nicene Council. 4. A Letter on the Doctrine of 
Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria. 5. Four Orations against 
the Arians. 6. A Letter to Serapion. 7. Another to Epic- 
tetus; and 8. A Treatise, in two books, against Apollinaris. 
All these works relate to the Divinity of Christ, or to the 
doctrine of the Trinity, in some of its aspects. Athanasius 
is a clear, logical, and earnest writer. No one of the Greek 
fathers is worthy of so careful study as a theologian. 

2. AUGUSTINE was born Nov. 13, 353, and died Aug. 26, 
430. His doctrinal works are very numerous; and, apart 
from his De Civitate Det, a work even more comprehen- 
sive and doctrinal than Edwards’s “ History of Redemption,” 
may be arranged in three classes. 1. Those which relate to 
the Trinity, in opposition to the Arians and Manichzans. 
2. Those which relate to Anthropology, in opposition to the 
Pelagians ; and, 3. Those which relate to the polity and purity 
of the Church in opposition to the Donatists. 

These works evince fair scholarship, great depth and acute- 
ness of thought, a vigorous imagination, and oftentimes fervid 


piety. 


Introduction. 19 


3. Joun of Damascus was born somewhat prior to A.D. 
700, at Damascus. The time of his death is unknown; but 
it was between A.D. 754 and 787. 

His principal Treatise was entitled, “An Exposition of the 
Orthodox Faith.” It is the earliest work on systematic the- 
ology, but not strictly original. It is composed largely of 
quotations from the fathers of the Church, with connecting 
and explanatory remarks. 

4. ANSELM of CANTERBURY was born in A.D. 1033, at 
Aosta, of Piedmont, and died a.D. 1109. 

His theological writings were as follows: 1. Monologium 
de Divinitatis essentia. 2. Proslogion de Dei extstentia. 3. 
De fide Trinitatis et de incarnatione Verbt. 4. Cur Deus 
Homo?* The second contains his famous @ priorz demon- 
stration of the existence of God, and the fourth is the earliest 
elaborate statement of the commercial theory of the Atone- 
ment. 

5. PETER of LomBarDy was born near Novara, in Lom- 
bardy, about a.D. 1100, and died, according to some author- 
ities, in A.D. 1160; according to others, in A.D. 1164. His 
great work in theology was entitled Sententiarum Libri 
Quatuor. It resembles somewhat the Treatise of John of 
Damascus, but evinces much greater acutenéss. It quotes 
from the fathers, and attempts to reconcile their conflicting 
views. 

“The Sentences” was for a long time used as a text-book 
on theology in Catholic universities. Teachers lectured upon 
it, as they did on the works of Aristotle. 

6. THomas AQUINAS was born in A.D. 1227, at Aquino, in 
Campania, and died in a.p. 1274. His principal work was 
entitled Swmma Theologica, and divided into three parts. In 
Part First, he treats of the Being and Attributes of God, of 
Predestination, Providence, and the Trinity; of Angels; of 
the Creation of our World; and of Man,—his nature, primi 
tive state, the origin of evil, free will, the penalty of sin, &c. 


1 Translated in the “ Bib. Sacra,” Vol. VIII. 
2 Translated in the “ Bib, Sacra,” Vol. XI., XII. 


20 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


In Part Second, he treats of the powers of the human soul, 
the nature and extent of moral law, and indeed of all ques- 
tions in Christian Ethics. In Part Third, he treats of the 
Person and Work of Christ, and of the Sacraments. "Aquinas 
belonged to the Augustinian school of theologians. 


7. MELANCTHON (P.) was born at Brettin, in Baden, Feb. 


16, 1497; spent most of his life at Wittenberg, as professor in 
the University, and died April 19, 1560. His chief theolog- 
ical work was entitled Loci Communes. It grew out of lectures 
on the Epistle to the Romans; and passing lightly over the 
doctrines of God, the Trinity, the Creation, and the Person 
of Christ, — doctrines which had hitherto occupied the prin- 
cipal place in systematic theology, —he gave the body of his 
work to the doctrine of Redemption. Depravity, the will, 
regeneration, justification, and similar themes, were fully dis- 
cussed. In the first edition, he reproduced the Augustinian 
system; but he afterwards adopted a substantially Arminian 
view. 

8. CaLvin (J.) was born in Picardy, at Noyon, July 10, 
1509, and died in Geneva, May 19, 1564. 


His commentaries are theological as well as exegetical. - 


But he also wrote a treatise on Christian Doctrine, entitled 
Institutio Christiane Religionis. The great features of his 
system are well understood. 

9. HuTTER (L.) was born in January, 1563, at Nellingen, 
near Ulm, and died at Wittenberg, Oct. 23, 1616. 

His theological works are the following: 1. Lzbri Chrts- 
tiane Concordia Explicatio. 2. Compendium locorum Theolog- 
icorum, to take the place of. Melancthon’s Locz Communes, on 
account of the “crypto—Calvinism”’ of the latter.’ Locé 
Communes Theologict, more copious than the preceding. All 
these are Lutheran authorities. 

10. GERHARD (J.) was born at Quedlinburg, Oct. 17, 1582, 
and died at Jena, Aug. 20, 1637. . 

His theological works are: 1. Doctrina Catholica et Evan- 


1 Reproduced by Hase, “Hutterus Redivivus,” translated into English, and 
published in Philadelphia, 1868. 


Introduction. 21 


gelica, 3 vols. 2. Loct Communes Theologici, 9 vols. This 
work may be considered a thesaurus of Lutheran theology. 

11. Grotius (H.) was born at Delft, in Holland, in 1553, 
passed mest of his life in Holland and France, was a very 
distinguished scholar and writer, and died Aug. 29, 1645. 

Two of his works deserve notice. 1. His treatise, De 

veritate Religionis Christiane, a comprehensive and learned 
treatise on the truth of Christianity; and, 2, his Defensza 
fidet Catholice de satisfactione Christi adversus F. Socinum 
The Grotian theory of the Atonement is nearly equivalent 
to what is now called the Rectoral view. Grotius was a 
decided Arminian. 

12. Episcopius (S.) was born at Amsterdam, in January, 
1583, where also he died in 1643. 

His theological works were: 1. Confessio seu declaratio 
sententie pastorum Remonstrantium. 2. Institutiones Theolog- 
tc@, —lectures at Amsterdam, to his students. 3. Responsio 
ad questiones Theologicas, 64. Episcopius hesitated as to the 
divinity of Christ, and esteemed the doctrine of his super- 
natural birth of no consequence. 

13. QUENSTEDT (J. A.) was born at Quedlinburg, in the 
year 1617, and died at Wittenberg, May 22, 1688. 

His chief work was entitled, Zheologia Didactico-polemica, 
sive systema Theologicum, in 2 vols. It is learned, compre- 
hensive, logical, though less attractive in style than the work 
of Turretin. 

14. TuRRETIN (F.) was born in Geneva, Oct. 17, 1623, 
where also he died, Sept. 28, 1687. 

His chief work is entitled, Jvstitutio Theologie Elenctice. 
The first two volumes are very able, and for the most part 
correct. 

15. BuppeEus (J. F.) was born at Anclam, June 25, 1667, 
and died at Jena, Nov. 19, 1729. 

Qf his writings we mention the following: 1. /vstztutiones 
Theslogie Moralis. 2. Theses de Athetsmo et Superstitione. 
3. Institutiones Theologie Dogmatice, — a valuable treatise. 

16. STAPFER (J. F.) was born at Brougg, in 1708, and died 
at Diesbach, of Berne, in 1775. 


22 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


His theological works were: 1. Justitutiones Theologia 
Polemice, five volumes. The first volume of this work is ¢ 
masterpiece of its kind. 2. “Grounds of the True Religion,” 
twelve volumes. 3. “Christian Ethics,” six volumes. Some 
oi these works are diffuse, but they all evince logical power. 

17. MosHeEtm (J. L.) was born at Lubec, Oct, 9, 1694, and 
died at Gottingen, Sept. 9, 1755. 

He is chiefly remembered as an Ecclesiastical historian ; 
but he wrote also on systematic theology. 1. His “ Ethics 
of the Holy Scriptures,” in five volumes; and, 2, “ Elements 
of Dogmatic Theology.” The style of this latter work is 
remarkably perspicuous ; and one who has but a slight knowl- 
edge of Latin can read it without difficulty. 

18. MELCHIOR CANUS was born at Tarraco, Spain, about 
A.D. 1500, and died in 1560. 

His chief theological work was entitled, Locz Theologicz, in 
twelve books. It treats of the sources of Christian doctrines, 
namely, Scripture and Tradition, the Arrangement of these 
doctrines, and the proper Method of discussion. 

19. BELLARMIN (R.) was born in Tuscany, Oct. 4, 1542, 
and died at Rome, Sept. 27, 1621. 

His work, entitled, Dzsputationes de Controversits Christiane 
jidet adv. hujus temporis hereticos, discusses all points then 
in debate between the Roman Catholics and the Protestants. 
It is not intentionally unjust to the Protestants; and it lays 
open the papal system without disguise. 

20. JANSENIUS (O.) was born, Oct. 28, 1585, at “Accoy, near 
Leerdam, North Holland, and died May 6, 1638. 

His principal work was entitled, Augustinus seu doctrina 
St. Augustint de humane nature sanitate, egritudine, medicina, 
adversus Pelagianos, &c. It is a work of great ability, and 
sets forth the Augustinian theology with precision and vigor. 
He is said to have read the writings of Augustine against 
the Pelagians twenty times, and the rest of his writings ten 
times through. 

21. Bunyan (J.) was born in 1628, at Elstow, near Bedford, 
and died Aug. 31, 1688. 


Lntroduction. 23 


Of his writings, the following may be mentioned as theo- 
logical in substance, if not in form: 1. “ Justification by an 
Imputed Righteousness.” 2, “The Work of Christ as an 
Advocate.” 3. “Saved by Grace.” 4. “The Law and Grace 
unfolded.” 5. “Some Gospel Truths opened; Divine and 
Human Nature of Christ.” 6. “Defence of the Doctrine of 
Justification by Faith.” 7. “ Election and Reprobation.” 

22. GILL (J.) was born at Kettering, Nov. 23, 1697, and 
died at Horsleydown, Oct. 14, 1771. He is chiefly known as 
a commentator, and was very familiar with Rabbinical works. 
His “ Body of Divinity” is a highly Calvinistic work, evinc- 
ing considerable ability. 

23. FULLER (A.) was born Feb. 6, 1754, at Wicken, and 
died at Kettering, May, 7, 1815. 

His works, like those of Bunyan, are for the most part 
theological. The following, however, may be specified: 1. 
“Letters on Systematic Divinity.” 2. “The Gospel its 
own Witness.” 3 “ The Gospel worthy of all Acceptation.” 
4. “The Calvinistic and Socinian Systems compared.” 5. 
“ Dialogues, &c., between Crispus and Gaius.” 6. “ Con- 
versations between Peter, James, and John.” The writings 
of Fuller are remarkably clear, discriminating, and sound. 

24. Dace (J. L.) “ Manual of Theology and of Church 
Polity,’ a sound and useful work. The second part is espe- 
cially valuable. 

25. RrpGELy, THomas, was born in London, about a.pD. 
1667, and died March 27, 1734. 

His chief work is entitled, “A Body of Divinity,” &c., and 
consists of Lectures on the Assembly’s Larger Catechism. 
It is carefully written, and evinces much ability and piety. 

26. Dick (J.) was born in Aberdeen, Oct. 10, 1764, and 
died Jan. 25, 1833. 

His “ Theology” is a work of considerable value. 

27. CHALMERS, THOMAS, was born in East Anstruther, a 
village of Fife, March 17, 1780, and died at Edinburgh, May 
a1, 1647. 

Of his works, we may specify: 1. “Christian Revelation.” 


24 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


2. “Institutes of Theology.” This latter work gives the 
matured views of Chalmers on theology. 

28. EDWARDs (J.) was born at East Windsor, Ct., Oct. 5, 
1703, and died at Princeton, N. J., March 22, 1758. 

Of his numerous writings, we mention the following: 1. 
‘‘Inquiry into the Freedom of the Will.” 2. “The Great 
Doctrine of Original Sin defended.” 3. “The History of 
Redemption.” 4. “Nature of True Virtue.” 5. “Concern- 
ing Religious Affections.” 6. ‘Qualifications for Full Com- 
munion in the Visible Church.” Edwards is a very powerful 
writer; acute, exhaustive, spiritual. 

29. BELLAMY, JOSEPH, was born at New Cheshire, Ct. 
in 1719, and died at Bethlehem, Ct., March 6, 1790. ‘ 

Of his works, the following deserve special notice: 1. 
“True Religion Delineated.” 2. “The Wisdom of God in 
the Permission of Sin” (four sermons). 3. “Theron, Paul- 
inus, and Aspasio, on Love, Faith, Assurance,” &c. Bellamy 
was a powerful preacher, a vigorous writer, and a sound 
theologian. 

30. Hopxins (S.) was born at Waterbury, Ct., Sept. 19, 
1721, and died in Newport, R. I., Dec. 20, 1803. 

His theological views are contained in a work entitled, “A 
System of Doctrines contained in Divine Revelation,” &c. 
He was a clear thinker and able writer, though not an attrac- 
tive preacher. Hopkinsianism. 

31. Woops (L.) His theological works are distinguished 
for good sense, great caution for the most part, and perspic- 
uity of style. 

32. Finney (C. G.) “Lectures on Systematic Theology,” 
valuable for the view which they give of their author's 
opinions; but somewhat logical, dry, and wanting in refer- 
ences to Scripture. | 

33. TayLor (N. W.) 1. “Lectures on Moral Government.” 
2. “ Revealed Theology.’’ These volumes give, of course, a 
definite statement of Dr. Taylor’s system. They are ably, 
though somewhat diffusely written. 

34. BRECKINRIDGE (R. J.) “Christianity Objectively Con- 


Introduction, 25 


sidered, and Christianity Subjectively Considered.” Old 
School; verbose, but not without vigor. 

35. Hopcr (A. A.) “Outlines of Theology,” a compact 
exhibition of the Princeton theology. 

36. Barrp (E. J.) ‘The Elchirn Revealed in the Creation 
and Redemption of Man.” Augustinian. 

-37. WESLEY (J.) was born at Epworth, June 17, 1703, and 
died March 2, 17901. 

The following works deserve examination: 1. ‘“ Predestina- 
tion calmly Considered.” 2. “Thoughts on Imputed Right- 
eousness.” 3. “What is an Arminian?” 4. “ Serious 
Thoughts on the Perseverance of the Saints.’”’ 5. “ Plain 
Account of Christian Perfection.” 6. “A Treatise on Bap- 
tism.” 7. “ Doctrine of Original Sin.” 

The following may also be noted; some of them are of 
great ability : — 

38. Hopce (C.) ‘Systematic Theology;” a comprehen- 
sive and able discussion of nearly all the topics belonging to 
Systematic Theology. 

39. WARDLAW (R.) “Systematic Theology ;” also an able 
and valuable work, distinguished for its reverent use of the 
Scriptures. 

40. STORR and Fiatr. “An Elementary Course of Bibli- 
cal Theology.” 

41. VAN OoOSTERZEE (J. J.) “‘ Christian Dogmatics ;’ com- 
prehensive and evangelical. 

42. MARTENSEN (H.) “ Christia&i Dogmatics ;”’ fresh and 
interesting. 

43. Reuss (E.) “History of Christian Theology in the 
Apostolic Age.” 

44. Scumip (C. F.) “Biblical Theology of the New Testa- 
ment.” 

45. Wetss (B.) “Lehrbuch der Biblischen Theologie des 
Neuen Testaments.” Very useful. 

46. MESSNER (H.) ‘Die Lehre der Apostel.”’ Valuable. 

47. OEHLER (G. F.) “Theology of the Old Testament.” 

48. Scuuttz (H.) “Alttestamentliche Theologie.” 


’ 


26 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


49. THomasius (G.) ‘Christi Person und Werk.” 

50. Puiyippi (F. A.) ‘ Kirchliche Glaubenslehre,” 

51. SCHLEIERMACHER (F.) “Der Christliche Glaube.” 

52. EBRARD (J. H. A.) ‘“ Christliche Dogmatik.” Reformed. 

53. Herre (H.) “Die Dogmatik der Evangelisch-refor- 
mirten Kirche.” Reformed. 

54. Lutnuarpt (C. E.) ‘“ Kompendium der Dogmatik.” 
Brief and clear. 

55. SCHENKEL (D.) “ Die Christliche Dogmatik vom Stand- 
punkte des Gewissens aus dargestellt.” 

56. BireDERMANN (A. E,) “ Christliche Dogmatik.” Skep- 
tical. 

57. Kaunis (K. A.) ‘ Lutherische Dogmatik.” Historical 
and Systematic. 

58. Hormann (J.C. K.) “Der Schriftbeweis.” Original. 

59. PERRONE (J.) ‘‘ Preelectiones Theologicz.’”’ Catholic. 

60. HrinricH (J. B.) “Dogmatische Theologie,” Catholic. 

61. WINER (G.B.) “A Comparative View of the Doctrines 
and Confessions of the Various Communities of Christen- 
dom.” 

62. NiemMEvER (H. A.) Collectio Confessionum in Ecclesiis 
Reformatis publicatarum. 

63. Hase (C. A.) Libri Symbolict Ecclesie Evangelice. 

64. RIcHTER (A. L.) Canones et Decreta Concilii Triden- 
tint. 

65. M6HLER (J.A.) “Symbolism;” that is, of the Doctrines 
in controversy between Roman Catholics and Protestants, 

66. Gurricke (H.E. F.) ‘Allgemeine Christliche Sym- 
bolik,” &c. 

67. Hormann (R.) “ Symbolik,” &c. 

68. DENzINGER (H.) Luxcheiridion Symbolorum et Defint- 
tionum que de Rebus Fidei et Morum a Concilits Occumenicts 
et Summits Pontificibus emanarunt. 


The Existence of God. 27 


PART FIRS F: 


THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 


THE word, God, is now used to denote a supreme Being, 
or Mind, —a Mind on which all other beings and things are 
dependent. The Perfection of this Being will be considered 
in Part Third, where the testimony of Scripture can be 
adduced with more effect. It is wiser to question Nature as 
to the existence of a supreme Being than as to the existence 
of a God who is absolutely perfect; for it is possible that 
Nature may not reveal to us the infinitely holy and benevo- 
lent God of the Bible as clearly as it does a supreme Mind; 
and it is certainly better to prove less than we might than to 
attempt proving more than we can. 

Before considering the reasons which justify our belief in 
the existence of a supreme Being, it may be well to mention 
some of the leading forms of belief which are entertained by 
men who deny the existence of a personal God. It will not, 
however, be necessary to refute the arguments which they 
bring forward in support of their opinions; for this will be 
virtually done in stating the reasons for theism.’ 

(1.) Materialism. To state the doctrine of materialism as 
its advocates would do at the present time may be difficult; 
but the following is an attempt: Matter is self-existent and 
the source of all things. Through the law of “natural selec- 
tion,” or of the “survival of the fittest,” molecules that are 
centres of force, acting and reacting upon one another 


1 Hodge (C.) “Sys. Theol.” pp. 245-334; Buchanan (J.) “On Atheism; ” 
Laudenbach (F. C.) “Eine liberale Polemik gegen Atheismus ;” Dabney (R. L.) 
“The Sensualistic Philosophy of the Nineteenth Century;” “ Boston Lectures,” 
1870: “Christianity and Skepticism;” Rogers (H.) “The Eclipse of Faith; ” 
‘Defence of the Eclipse of Faith;” “Reason and Faith and Essays.” 


28 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


through the ages of eternity, have built the cosmos. Order, 
life, sensation, instinct, reason, conscience, devotion, are the 
products of atoms originally without life, order, or intelli- 
gence. Behold creatures infinitely wiser than their Creator! 

(2.) Puntheism. If this word be interpreted strictly, it 
means that “the universe is God, and God is the universe.” 
But this general statement has been explained by three dis- 
tinct theories: (a) That of Materialistic Pantheism, which 
has been sufficiently described above. (4) That of Idealistic 
Pantheism, which supposes the all-including Entity to be 
spiritual. And (c) that of Dualistic Pantheism, which as- 
cribes to the One and All both thought and extension. 

With these theories in mind we proceed to consider the 
reasons which justify our belief in the existence of a su- 
preme Mind, the cause of all other existence. For we be- 
lieve with Christlieb,.that “the idea of God develops itself — 
(along with those of our own personality and the Cosmos) 
through contact with the outer world of xecessity, from the 
inward predisposition of our mental and moral constitution.” 

The reasons which may be alleged in support of theism 
may be set forth in various ways; and the following proposi- 
tions are given as one of these ways, and one that is suggested 
by the habits of scientific men at the present time :— 

1. [tts more reasonable to suppose that thére is but one orig- 
inal and self-existent Being or Force, than to suppose that there 
are more than one. 

In support of this statement it may be remarked, (a) that 
the tendency of scientific speculation is towards unity of 
source for all things Many students of Nature believe that 
source to be matter, including force; others believe it to be 
spirit, or intelligent force; and others still believe it to be 
something which possesses the properties of both matter 
and spirit. Prof. Huxley intimates that “the existing world 
lay potentially in the cosmic vapor; and that a sufficient 
intelligence could, from a knowledge of the properties of the 
molecules of that vapor, have predicted, say the state of the 
Fauna of Britain in 1869, with as much certainty as one can 


The Existence of God. 29 


say what will happen to the vapor of the breath in a cold 
winter's day.””* Mr. Wallace (A. R.) holds that “the whole 
universe is not merely dependent on, but actually zs, the W2// 
of higher intelligences, or one supreme Inéelligence.”? And 
Stuart (B.) says, “‘The one substance, with two sets of 
properties, two sides, the physical and the mental, a 
doublefaced unity, — would appear to comply with all the ex- 
igencies of the case, not confounding the persons nor divid- 
ing the substance.” § 

(6) That the tendency of philosophical and religious 
thought is also towards unity of source for all things. All 
pantheistic theories illustrate this tendency, that of Spinoza 
in particular. Says Romanes (G. J.), “Just as we are by 
the laws of thought compelled to lodge the attribute of self- 
existence somewhere, so we are by the same laws precluded 
from lodging it in more than one substance.’ * Even Dr. 
Hickok, in his “ Rational Cosmology,” seems on the verge of 
Pantheism, so completely does he resolve everything into 
force, and force into the action of God. Still, it would be 
unjust not to add, that he is positively a theist instead of a 
pantheist. And Herbert Spencer uses the following lan- 
guage: “Weare no more able to form a circumscribed idea 
of Cause than of Space or Time; and we are consequently 
obliged to think of the Cause which transcends the limits of 
our thought, as positive though indefinite. Just in the same 
manner that, in conceiving any bounded space, there arises 
the nascent consciousness of space outside the bounds; so, 
when we think of any definite cause, there arises a nascent 
consciousness of a cause behind it; and in the one case, as in 
the other, this nascent consciousness i$ in substance like 
that which suggests it, though without form. The momen- 
tum of thought inevitably carries us beyond conditioned ex- 


1 Hodge (C.) “Syst. Theol.” I. p. 281. 

? Wallace (A. R.) “Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection,” p. 368. 

3 This language ought perhaps to be accredited to Prof. Bain, though it is 
adopted by Stuart. 

4 “Christian Prayer and General Laws,” p. 113. 


30 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


istence to unconditioned existence; and this ever persists in 
us, as the body of a thought to which we can give no shape.” 
(“First Principles,” p. 93, cf. Jon, iv. 12 sq). 

2. It 1s more reasonable to suppose that Matter ts a product 
of Mind than to suppose that Mind ts a product of Matter. 

For (2) mind is known to be a self-acting force, while 
matter is not. Mind can be said to originate motion, while 
matter.can only receive and transmit it. We admit that 
mind is not known by consciousness to be, in the strict sense 
of the word, creative; but it is known to be active: and pri- 
mary action is a sort of creation,— it is something origznated. 

(6) It is easier to believe that a higher principle originates 
a lower one than to believe that a lower principle or power 
originates a higher one. A free cause may produce what is 
less than itself; but it is difficult to think that any cause can 
originate what is greater than itself. A self-acting force may 
be supposed to put forth only a part of its energy, but not to 
put forth more energy than it actually possesses. 

(c) To suppose matter, the one original and originating 
power, is to suppose an infinite series of changes in finite 
and dependent objects; and this is a supposition wholly un- 
satisfactory to reason. Says Prof. Whewell, “On the hy- 
pothesis of an infinite series, we pass from effect to cause, 
and from that to a higher cause, in search. of something on 
which the mind can rest; but, if we do nothing but repeat 
this process, there is no use in it. Our question is not an- 
swered, but evaded. The mind cannot acquiesce in the des- 
tiny thus presented to it, of being referred from event to 
event along an interminable vista of causation and time: it 
takes refuge in the assumption of a First Cause, from an 
employment inconsistent with its own nature.” (See Bib. 
Sac. VI. 613 sq.; VII. 613 sq.) ; 

Moreover, the development hypothesis leads to another 
difficulty. If we suppose the universe to be uncreated and 
eternal in substance, and to be passing, by a constant pro- 


1 Ulrici (B.) “Gott und die Natur,” S. 506 sq.; Princeton Theol. Essays, 
First Series, “Cause and Effect,” p. 694 sq. 


The Existence of God. 31 


cess, however slow, from inanimate nature to animate, and 
from the lower forms of animal life to the higher, why has it not 
made greater progress? Or, if further progress is impossible, 
why was not the present stage reached gous before it was 
reached? The movement has been in a line, not in a circle; 
and each stage of it has required but a limited period of time, 
however long that limited period may have been. Hence, the 
periods requisite to bring the universe to its present stage of 
development must have been repeated a countless number of 
times in the eternity past; and we must have existed ozs 
ago, as well as now. 

3. Lt ts more reasonable to suppose that the wonderful order 
of the material universe is due to the action of a Supreme 
Mind than to suppose it due to the action of forces cooperating 
together without purpose.* 

For (a) such order is what might be expected from the 
action of a supreme mind; since all that is known of mind 
leads us to think of it as able and likely to produce a cosmos, 
if it produced a universe at all. Any expansion or proof of 
this statement would be superfluous; for it is supported 
by the best of all evidence, that of consciousness; by the 
clearest of all knowledge, that of one’s own mental action 
in one’s most rational moments. 

(6) The same cannot be said of matter. For it is not 
known to think or foresee or plan. It appears to be blind, 
unconscious, and without freedom, exercising its force with 
no reference to an order which it cannot appreciate, a beauty 
wnich it cannot admire, or a moral excellence which it can- 


1 Ulrici (B.) “Gott und die Natur,” S. 505 sq.; Whewell (W.) “ Astronomy 
and General Physics treated in Reference to Natural Theology;” Buckland 
(W.) “Geology and Mineralogy considered in Reference to Natural Theology ;” 
Prout (W.) “Chemistry, M‘neralogy, and the Function of Digestion considered 
in Reference to Natural Theology;” Babbage (C.) “The Ninth Bridgewater 
Treatise ;” Trendelenburg (A.) “Logische Untersuchungen,” Bd. II. “Der 
Zweck;” Spencer (H.) “ First Principles of a New System of Philosophy; ” 
Burr (E. F.) “Ecce Colum ” and “ Pater Mundi; ” Cooke (J. P.) “Religion and 
Chemistry ;” Liefchild (J. R.) “The Higher Ministry of Nature viewed in the 
Light of Modern Science.” 


32 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


not love. If, therefore, its properties sometimes tend to 
order, instead of confusion, we spontaneously ask: How 
came it to have these properties, together with the motion 
necessary to secure their working toward a desirable end? 
In other words, so far as it is known to us, matter is not 
rational, and cannot be supposed to obey the laws of reason, 
unless it is under the control of an agent distinct from itself. 

Hence, it is not surprising that the writers of Genesis, of 
Job, of the nineteenth Psalm, and of the Epistle to the 
Romans, attributed the order of the cosmos to a supreme 
Being. Many pagan philosophers did the same. Says 
Thomas Aquinas, “ We see that some things without knowl- 
edge, to wit, natural bodies, work toward an end; for either 
always or generally, they operate in the same way to secure 
that which is best. And from this it is evident that they 
come to that end, not by accident, but by intention. But 
things without knowledge do not tend towards an end, unless 
they are directed by some one who has knowledge, as. an 
atrow by the archer. There is, then, some intelligent being 
by whom all natural objects are arranged with a view to 
some end; and this being we call God.” Trendelenburg 
remarks, ‘that, so far as design is realized in the world, 
thought, as its ground, has preceded it.”* The same view is 
defended by Sir William Hamilton, who maintains, that, in 
the order of nature, final causes precede efficient causes. 

But against it an objection has been raised, namely, that 
there are some things in the cosmos which appear to work 
evil, rather than good; and these are best accounted for by 
supposing the universe to be a result of the action or inter- 
action of blind forces. ; 

In reply to this, it may be said, 1, That, on the whole, a 
maximum of good with a mznzmum of evil, is secured by the 
order which prevails in the cosmos. 2, That many things 
which at first sight appear to result in evil are found, upon 
further examination, to bring to pass more good than evil. 


1 “Summa,” I. 2; “Logische Untersuchungen,” II. 28. 


The Existence of God. 33 


3. That the known sinfulness of man is to be taken into 
account as a modifying circumstance, not only as working 
-evil, but as calling for punishment. And, 4, that, as human 
intelligence increases, the adaptation of all things in Nature 
to some good end is likely to be regarded as more and more 
probable. 

4../t is more reasonable to suppose that the vegetable world 
ts a product of Mind, organizing Matter, than to suppose it a 
product of Matter organizing itself. 

It is admitted by all, that the existence of vegetables was 
preceded by that of inorganic matter, and that the appear- 
ance of the former constituted an era in the history of the 
-world. But how was this new and higher kind of being 
originated ? 

If the cosmos was created by a Supreme Intelligence, 
there is .no difficulty in accounting for the introduction of 
mundane Flora as soon as the world was in a condition to 
perpetuate the same. But if protoplasm is a result of chem- 
ical action; if the phenomena of vegetable structure and 
growth are due to fortuitous combinations of lifeless mole- 
cules, it is surprising that these combinations happened to 
‘take place at the very juncture which called for them. 

Should one suggest that they may have taken place before, 
but had perished for want of a suitable habitat, we reply that 
they appear to have a suitable habitat now, yet there is no 
evidence of their taking place. In fact, spontaneous genera- 
‘tion has never been proved, and the best physicists do not 
‘think that it ever will be proved. 

Matter, it has been said, is measured by weight; energy by 
work ; and intelligence by adaptation. But neither weight 
‘nor work is sufficient to account for the vegetable world: 


1 Roget (P. M.) “ Animal and Vegetable Physiology considered in Reference 
»to Natural Theology; ” McCosh and Dickie, “Typical Forms and Special 
;Ends in Creation ;” Beale (1. S.) “Protoplasm; or, Life, Matter, and Mind;” 
-also, “Theories of Life: their Influence on Religious Thought;” Sterling 
(J. H.) “As Regards Protoplasm in Relation to Prof. Huxley’s ‘ Essay on the 
Physical Basis of Life.” 


34 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


for in it are to be seen evidences of exquisite adaptation. 
Mind accounts for this adaptation; matter does not. 

Three points are worthy of particular attention, namely: 
(a) The amazing difference between the phenomena of vege- 
table life and those of chemical action. (6) The fact, ad- 
mitted by nearly all naturalists, that living organism is never 
born of that which is lifeless. And (¢) that adaptation is 
manifest, not only in the time when vegetable life was origi- 
nated, but also in the endlessly diversified forms which it 
displays. 

5. /¢ 7s more reasonable to suppose that the animal world is 
a product of Mind imparting a higher organizing principle to 
vegetable elements, than to suppose it a product of vegetable 
forces acting alone. 

The transition from vegetable to antnidl life seems to us 
less marked than that from inorganic Nature to organic. 
Yet animal life must be pronounced different zz 4iud from 
vegetable life. It affords indications of conscious feeling, if 
not of consecutive thought. In many of the nobler animals, 
a certain kind of intelligence is manifested; very different, 
indeed, from that possessed by man, yet worthy of-admira- 
tion as compared with floral life. Taken as a whole, the 
Fauna which inhabit this earth have an existence far richer 
and more varied than that of vegetables,— so much higher, it 
may be truly said, that we can pronounce the latter to be 
related to the former as means are related to ends. 

The argument for. design in Nature can be studied with 
great advantage in the structure of the numberless varieties 
of animals that fill the earth. For (a) the particular organs 
of every animal are adapted to one another; so that from a 
single bone of an unknown animal its entire construction and 


1 Agassiz (L.) “Essay on Classification,” &c.; Kirby (W.) “The Power, 
Wisdom, and Goodness of God as manifested in the Creation of Animals;” 
Miller (H.) “Footprints of the Creator;” Durkheim (H.) “Théologie de la 
Nature ;” Beale (I.. S.) “Bioplasm: An Introduction to the Study of Physiology 
and Medicine,” p. 207; Ragg (T.) “Creation’s Testimony to its God;” Bib. Sac 
XXXIII. pp. 448-493 “ The Divine Method of Producing Living Species.” 


The Existence of God. 35 


habits of life may sometimes be inferred. (6); The whole 
structure of an animal is adapted to the climate, soil, and 
products of the region to which it belongs. (c) The means of 
self-defence, self-preservation, and reproduction are adapted to 
the place where an animal is expected to live. Thus ‘the 
whole vegetable and animal world has been constructed on 
one comprehensive plan. As there is a relation of one organ 
of a given plant or animal to all others and to the whole, so 
the whole race of plants and the whole race of animals are 
related.” ? 

With reference to the evidences of design in the animal 
world, Prof. Agassiz says, “I know those who hold it to be 
very unscientific to believe that thinking is not something 
inherent in matter, and that there is an essential difference 
between inorganic and living and thinking beings. I shall 
not be prevented by any such pretensions of a false philoso- 
phy from expressing my conviction that, as long as it cannot 
be shown that matter or physical forces do actually reason, I 
shall consider any manifestation of thought as evidence of 
the existence of a thinking Being as the author of such 
thought, and shall look upon an intelligent and intelligible 
connection between the facts of Nature as direct proof of the 
existence of a thinking God, as certainly as man exhibits the 
power of thinking when he recognizes their natural relation.” ? 

6. lt ts more reasonable to suppose that man as a rational 
being is a product of Mind, giving a higher principle of life to 
animal being, than to suppose him a product of mere vital 
Sorces acting without reason.® 


1 Hodge (C.) “ Systematic Theology,” I. p. 222. 

2 “Contributions to the Natural History of the United States,” p. ro. 

3 Hill (T.) Bib. Sac. XXXI. pp. 593-614; XXXII. 1-18; 303-319; Wright 
(G. F.) XX XIII. 657 -694, “ Objections to Darwinism and the Rejoinders of its 
Advocates ;” Darwin (C.) “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural 
Selection, ” 6th ed.; “The Variation of Plants and Animals under Domestica- 
tion ;” “ Descent of Man,” 2d ed.; Lyell (C.) “ Principles of Geology,” 11th ed.; 
Dana (J. D.) “Manual of Geology,” 2d ed.; Agassiz (L.) “Contributions to the 
Natural [History of the United States,” Vol. I. ; Argyll (Duke of) “ The Reign of 
Law ;” “ Primeval Man;” Art. in Contemporary Rev. Vol. XXVI. pp. 352-3763 


36 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


If we look at human reason, and compare it with the intel. 
ligence of any other being on earth, the interval between the 
two will be found immeasurable. Much as may be said in 
praise of instinct or animal sagacity, it appears to be differ- 
ent in kind from the understanding of man; and the biblical 
narrative, which permits us to regard the physical nature of 
man as perhaps akin to that of other animals, is perfectly 
right in tracing his spiritual nature to a higher source. It 
cannot be fairly accounted for as a chance improvement on 
merely animal intelligence. Even the size of the human 
brain, and especially of that portion of it which seems to be 
the organ of reason, is so much greater than that of beings 
endowed with instinct merely, as to render any natural 
development of the one from the other extremely improbable. 

No one can expect to set forth in words the whole differ- 
ence between reason and instinct ;7 but this, at least, may be 
said, that reason is master of principles, of general concepts, 
and of language,— her most noble servant; while instinct is 
a stranger to all these: that reason is reflective, inventive, 
inquisitive, and ever growing; while instinct is perceptive, 
executive, and artistic, in a high degree, but within narrow 
limits : that reason seeks to explore the universe, and look 
into eternity in search of causes and motives; while instinct 
gives no sign of interest in anything much beyond the range 
of experience through sensation. Human reason may need 
the counsel which Raphael is represented as giving to Adam,— 


“ Solicit not thy thoughts with matters hid; 
Leave them to God above; Him serve and fear! 
Heaven is for thee too high 
To know what passes there. Be lowly wise; 
Think only what concerns thee and thy being ; 


Dawson (J. W.) “The Story of the Earth and Man; ” “Nature and the Bible ;” 
“North British Review,” Vol. XLVI. pp. 277-318; Southall (J. C.) “The Re- 
cent Origin of Man, as illustrated by Geology and the Modern Science of Pre- 
historic Archzology;” Dana (J. D.) “Man’s Zodlogical Position,” and “On 
Cephalization,” New Englander, 1867, p. 283 sq. and 495 sq. 

1 Chadbourne (P. A.) “Instinct in Animals and Men;” Paine (M.) “The 
Soul and Instinct;” Bascom (J.) “ Instinct,” in the “ Bib. Sacra” for 1871, p. 
654 sq-; Janet (P.) “Final Causes,” p. 75 sq. 


The Existence of God. 37 


Dream not of other worlds, — what creatures there 
Live, in what state, condition, or degree; 
Contented that thus far hath been revealed 

Not of earth only, but of highest heaven; ”? 


but instinct is in no danger of rash excursions in pursuit of 
knowledge without limits. Indeed, the interval which sep- 
arates man from the lower animals appears to be almost as 
wide as that which separates the living vegetable from the 
lifeless stone. Any satisfactory explanation of the appear- 
ance of man on earth must include the action of a Supreme 
Mind as the cause of his rational nature.? 

7. tts more reasonable to suppose that man, as a moral 
being, 1s a product of a Supreme Mind, itself moral, than to 
suppose him a product of vital forces that have no moral insight. 

For it is to be observed, (a) that man, by his constitution, 
is a moral being. His power to recognize in action a moral 
quality is not a result of education, but an original endow- 
ment or possession, for it is universal and indestructible. 
It may be perverted, but it cannot be annihilated; for if it 
were, man would be no longer man. (6) That the cognition 
of right or wrong in action is not resolvable into any other 
function of the mind. This is admitted by the ablest writers 
on moral science, and is as certain as any other fact of men- 
tal analysis. See the various works on Moral Philosophy. 
(c) That this cognition cannot. be accounted for as the effect, 
or product of any action possible to merely vital forces. The 
weakest part of Darwin’s work on the “Descent of Man,” is 
that in which he attempts to explain the origin of conscience 
or moral judgment, and it is surprising that any careful stu- 
dent of nature or of mind should be satisfied with it. 


1 “Paradise Lost,” VIII. C. 167. sq. 

2 Said Tyndall (J.) in 1868: “ The passage from the physics of the brain 
to the corresponding facts of consciousness is unthinkable;” See Bell (C.) 
“The Hand, its Mechanism and Vital Endowments, as evincing Design;” 
Murphy (J. J.) “ Habit-and Inteiligence in their Connection with the Laws of 
Matter and Force;” Bain (A.) “Mind and Body;” Mivart (St. G.) “On the 
Genesis of Species ;” Potter (A.) “Nature, Man, and the Bible, witnessing to 
God and to Religious Truth.” 


38 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


It may be added, 1, that the consciousness of moral obli- 
gation involves a belief in a law outside of ourselves to which 
our conduct ought to be adjusted. 2. That with this con- 
sciousness of obligation, and belief in a moral law, is connected 
an instinctive and profound conviction that there is, back of 
that law, a “ Power, not ourselves, which makes for righteous- 
ness.” And, 3, that this Power cannot be regarded as des- 
titute of reason and moral character: it must be a Supreme 
Mind, to whom all created beings are accountable. 

This argument for the existence of God was recognized as 
conclusive by Immanuel Kant and by Sir Wm. Hamilton. 
The former relied upon it sclely, while the latter associated 
with it the mental law by which motive is seen to precede 
action, or final causes to go before efficient causes. In other 
words, by the normal action of reason and conscience, man is 
constrained to believe in the existence of God. “Con- 
science,” says Ullmann,“ in its deepest nature, i.e., considered 
as an original power in man which can never be entirely de- 
stroyed, is not so much productive as receptive; not origina- 
tive so much as acquiescent; not commanding, but rather 
acting in obedience to a law higher than itself. This truth 
is attested by the common consciousness of all men: it finds 
its expression in the fact that the dictates of conscience have, 
at all times, been acknowledged to be the voice of a Lawgiver 
and a Judge who is above man.” [Szzlessness of Christ, 
Pp. 32.] 

8. lt is more reasonable to believe that man, as a religious 
being, is a preduct of a Supreme Mind, than to believe him a 
product of mere vital forces.’ 

As it is impossible to imagine a moral being who is not 
also rational, since moral judgment is itself an act of. the 
highest intelligence, so, likewise, it is impossible to imagine a 
religious being who is not at the same time moral, since 
homage to the Supreme Ruler is the first duty, as well as the 


1 Gould (S. B.) “Origin and Development of Religious Belief”; Max Miiller, 
“Science of Religion”; Hardwick (C.) “Christ and other Masters ”; Leathes, 
{S.) “The Religion of the Christ,” Lec. 1. 


~ 


‘The Existence of God. 39 


greatest privilege, of such a being. In considering the relig- 
ious nature of man, it is, therefore, proper to bear in mind : — 

(a) That he has a deep feeling of dependence. Schleier- 
macher regarded this sense of dependence as the distinctively 
religious element or action of man’s nature. This may have 
been due to his strong leaning to Pantheism; certainly, it 
was a very imperfect estimate of what belongs to the religious 
nature of man; yet it contained a part of the truth. 

(4) That he has a vague but inextinguishable sense of 
accountability. This is often conceded by men who reject 
the authority of God; and a simple assertion of this truth, by 
one who believes it, has a wonderful power over the consciences 
of evilmen. They feel that there ought to be, and that there 
must be, a holy Sovereign who will punish sin. 

(c) That he has a tendency to worship, anda certain longing 
for communion with a Supreme Being. This appears in all 
branches of the human race. The rudest and the most culti- 
vated manifest the same tendency. They feel the need of 
God, and if they do not worship the true God, they are quite 
likely to bow down in superstitious fear before a false god. 

If, like Comte, they deny the Lord that made them, their 
religious nature is apt to avenge its wrongs by leading them 
to worship a creature, instead of the Creator. 

“With the first development of consciousness,” says Mansel 
(p. 120), “there grows up as part of it the innate feeling that 
our life, natural and spiritual, is not in our own power to sus- 
tain or prolong; that there is One above us on whom we are 
dependent, whose existence we learn and whose presence we 
realize by the same instinct of prayer.” This sense of depend- 
ence, it may be added, is supposed by many German theolo- 
gians to be the specifically religious element of human nature, 
and to be in itself an adequate proof of the existence of God. 

If, then, we can trust the action of our own souls, there is 
reason to believe in the existence of God. 

9. lt zs more reasonable to suppose that the Biblical writers 
were enlightened’, as they claim to have been, by a Supreme Mind, 
than to suppose that they were either deceivers or self-deceived. 


40 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


Yet these are the only hypotheses conceivable. The first 
meets all the conditions of the problem, and fairly accounts’ 
for the existence of the Scriptures; but neither of the others 
can be said to do this. For the writings themselves bear 
witness, in a remarkable manner, to the general good sense 
and clear rationality of their authors. Considering the period 
when they were written, the people for whom they were first 
written, the number and training of the probable writers, and 
the substance of religious and historical teaching which they 
contain, they must be considered preéminently reasonable, 
and it is absurd to look upon their authors as self-deceived. 
Nor is it less absurd to look upon them as deceivers. If 
deceivers, they were the worst of men; but these writes 
could not have been produced by such men. - 

10. Jt zs more reasonable to suppose that a Supreme Being, 
the Creator of religious beings, would give them a spiritual 
constitution that could be satisfied forever with Him as an 
object of worship, than to suppose that he would give them @ 
spiritual nature that could not be satisfied thus. 

Hence, if the nature of man requires perfection in the 
object of worship, it is reasonable to suppose that the Supreme 
Being is perfect. It is only by considering this demand of 
man’s religious nature that one can infer the absolute and 
infinite being of God from the things that he has made. For 
the created universe cannot be proved to be infinite; nor can 
a finite effect, considered merely as a product of force, be said 
to prove the existence of an infinite cause. 

But the arguments for the existence of God have generally 
been brought under the following heads :— 

(1) The a priort argument. This is founded upon certain 
necessary conceptions or beliefs of the mind, and is supposed 
by some to be demonstrative, though it is not. 

(2) Anselm says, that ‘God, as we believe, is something 
than which nothing greater can be thought. When the fool 
hears this he understands it; and whatever is understood is 
in the intellect. . But surely that, than which nothing greater — 
can be thought, cannot be in the intellect alone; for if it is 


e 


The Existence of God. 41 


in the intellect alone, it can be thought to be also in reality, 
which is greater.” Subtle, but inconclusive; for by it the 
idea of a thing is confounded with a belief in its existence.! 

(6) Des Cartes says, “a perfect being is possible; otherwise: 
it belongs to the nature of being to be imperfect, and the per- 
fection of being would consist in its imperfection; which is 
absurd. But if a perfect being is possible, it is actual; for 
any being hereafter brought into existence would not be per- 
fect.” No more conclusive than the foregoing; for that 
which is abstractly or conceptually possible, is confounded 
with that which is practically possible. 

(c) Dr. Samuel Clarke says, that “the ideas of eternity and 
infinity are necessary to the mind; but eternity and infinity 
are attributes or modes of existence ; hence they must inhere 
in some being whois eternal and infinite.” Unsatisfactory, — 
because we do not conceive of eternity and infinity as being, 
necessarily, attributes of a real being.’ 

(Z@) Cousin teaches, that “truth, beauty, and goodness are 
attributes, not substances. But attributes belong toa subject; 
hence absolute truth, beauty, and goodness, of which we nec- 
essarily have a conception, must belong to an Absolute Being.” 
Inconclusive, — because our minds do not affirm the necessary 
existence of absolute truth, beauty, and goodness, though the 
conception of them may be necessary. For “the sphere of 
thought is far wider (as well’ ag narrower) than the sphere of 
reality; and no inference is valid from the correctest thinking 
of an object to its actual existence.” 

That the 4frzori argument has been satisfactory to so many 
able thinkers shows that a belief in the existence of God is 
congenial to the human mind. 

(2) Zhe Cosmological Argument. The substance of this 


1 Anselm, “ Proslogion ” c. 11; Thomas Aquinas, Pars 1. Queestio 2 ; 

2 « Bib. Sac.” VIII. p. 532;\also p. 529. 

8 Clarke (S.) “‘ Discourse on the Being and Attributes of God,” p. 16; Cud- 
worth (R.) “Intellectual System of the Universe,” II. p. 141; Waterland (D.) 
Works, III. p. 323. 

4 Cousin “Lectures on The True, The Beautiful, and The Good,” p. 359. 


42 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


may be thus given. Something must be self-existent and 
eternal, to wit,—either Godorthe world. But the world, asit 
is, is evidently mutable and dependent. It must, therefore, 
be the last link thus far in an infinite series of dependent 
worlds, which is absurd, since the series would depend on 
nothing; or it must be dependent on God, which is reasonable. 
Hence there isa God. This argument is by no means demon- 
strative ; yet some force may be conceded to it, as showing 
the existence of God to be probable. 

(3) The Teleological Argument. It may be thus stated: 
Indications or evidences of design point back to a designer; 
an end sought, to a mind seeking it. The world affords 
inconceivably numerous evidences of design or adaptation, 
and, therefore, justifies our belief in the existence of a wise 
author and ruler. This argument is simple, comprehensive, 
and valid. The marks of order and adaptation which appear 
on every hand, and fill with delight the most careful observer, 
cannot be rationally attributed to any other source than a 
Supreme Mind. 

. (4) The Anthropological Argument. This embraces three 
particulars: (a2) the sense of dependence; (4) the sense of 
accountability ; and (c) the tendency to worship. This, also, 
appears to justify a belief in the existence of God, and indeed, 
as has been shown, of a God absolutely perfect. : 

(5) Zhe Christological Argument. This rests upon the 
following pillars: (a) the Bible as an existing phenomenon 
which must be accounted for; (4) the fulfilment of Prophecy 
in so many instances; (c) the evidence of well attested mira- 
cles; (d) the evidence of the supernatural Person of Christ; 
and (e) the influence of the Christian religion in the world.* 


1 Besides the works already referred to, the following may be named as 
worthy of being consulted. Cudworth (R.) “Intellectual System of the Universe,” 
II. p. 141 sq.; Stillingfleet (E.) “‘Origines Sacre,” b. III. ch. I.; Dodge (E.) 
“Evidences of Christianity,” Introduction; Nitzsch (C. I.) s. v. “Gott” in Her- 
zog Real-Encyklopadie; Peabody (A. P.) “ Christianity the Religion of Nature”; 
Chadbourne (P. A.) “ Natural Theology”; Duke of Argyll, ‘The Reign of 
Law,” and the “Primeval Man”; Princeton Review, 1870, p. 55 sq., A Review 
of “The Reign of Law”; and a great number of works on Natural Theology in 
the English and other languages. 


The Bible from God. 43 


PART SECOND. 
‘THE BIBLE FROM GOD. 


Before looking at the various reasons, which go to prove 
that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament were written 
by men divinely inspired, and have, therefore, divine authority, 
it is proper to show that a supernatural revelation of God’s 
will is neither impossible, incredible, nor improbable.’ 

(a) It ds not impossible: for the Creator of nature and of 
. man must be able, if he please, to act upon the nature which 
he made, whether it be matter or spirit, and to secure thereby 
new effects in the same. If there is a personal Creator, it is 
surely absurd to deny that he can deal in a sovereign way 
with his creation. 

(6) Jt zs not incredible: for if God is able to make a revela- 
tion of his will to men, by some means additional to the 
forces and laws of nature, it is surely possible, from a moral 
point of view, that he should do this. It would require super- 
human knowledge to justify any one in saying, that no cir- 
cumstances would warrant such a revelation. 

And, (c), /¢ ts not improbable : for 

1. Thoughtful men feel their need of a supernatural revela- 
tion. Without it, their spiritual wants seem to be overlooked 
in comparison with those of the body. They are conscious 
of needing clearer light than nature affords, especially in 
view of their sinful state. 

2. Most men are predisposed to believe in the reality of 
revelations from God. And as this predisposition exists in 
the best as well as in the worst of mankind, it should be 
regarded as constitutional and therefore indicative of the 
probability of a supernatural revelation. 


1 Krauss (A. E.), “Die Lehre von der Offenbarung;” Butler (J.), “The An 
alogy of Religion to the Constitution and Course of Nature,” Part Second. 


44 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


3. All men need such a revelation in order to accomplish 
the design of their moral and religious nature. For whatever 
may be said of the knowledge within their reach, they will 
not avail themselves of it in their actual condition without 
the addition of supernatural light and grace. If then there is 
any reason to believe that God is merciful, and not simply 
just, there is reason to believe that he has made, or will make, 
a special disclosure of his will. 

Assuming, then, that a supernatural revelation of religious 
truth is not antecedently improbable, it may be remarked that 
such a revelation may be made, either by a direct communica- 
tion of the needed truth to every person of our race, or by a 
communication, properly authenticated, for the use of all. 
The latter method is believed to have been chosen by the 
Most High. 

But against this method three objections have been 
raised, — 

(a) That zt does not treat all men alike. For some have 
the revelation, and others have it not. If the revelation is 
needed by any, it is needed by all, and should be given to all 
alike. But this objection, reduced to its principle, assumes 
that God is under some kind of obligafion to do as much for 
one sinner as he does for another. And, if this principle is 
correct, men in all lands, and in all times, should have the 
same or equivalent privileges. But no one can make it even 
probable that they do have them.’ 

(0) That it does not afford the means of salvation to all. 
For knowledge of the truth is a means of salvation, and it is 
plainly incompatible with the goodness of God to make 
salvation depend on knowledge that is not given to all. But 
to this it may be replied, — 1, that there would be no wrong 
done to sinners if they were left to suffer the just penalty 
for their sins; 2, that grace, or undeserved favor to one, 
does not originate a claim to it on the part of another; and, 


1 Says Augustine: “Cur non omnes docet Deus? Quia omnes quos docet, 
misericordia docet: quos autem non docet, judicio non docet,” De Predest. 
Sancto. c. 8; Butler (J.) “ Analogy,” Part II. ch. 3 and 6. 


The Bible from God. 45 


3, that salvation does not depend absolutely on a knowledge 
of truth supernaturally revealed, —the light of nature is suffi- 
cient, if sinners would vse it. 

(c) That it necessitates miracles as the only sufficient slowthers 
Sor the truth of the revelation. And miracles are antecedently 
improbable. God cannot be supposed to work them, unless 
it be for a great moral end, otherwise unattainable. But in 
answer to this it may be said, — 1, that, for aught we know, the 
other method would require something of a miraculous nature 
to certify the truth in question to every separate mind; and, 
2, that a supernatural event in the world of sense is entirely 
congruous with such an event in the world of mind, and 
therefore not, in the case supposed, improbable. 

I. THE New TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES ARE WORTHY OF 
FULL CONFIDENCE AS HISTORICAL RECORDS. 

This statement is meant to affirm the general correctness 
of the New Testament writings, but not the absence of all 
minor inaccuracies. They are perfectly credible, as compared 
with the best works of history, though it is not now affirmed 
that they are wholly free from unintentional errors. Whether 
the latter be also true, will be considered in the sequel. 

The trustworthiness of primary, historical records mainly 
depends, (a) on the opportunities which the writers had to 
learn the truth; (4) on their disposition to learn and declare 
the truii.; and (¢) on their powers of observation and of 
memory. 

To what extent were these conditions fulfilled in the writers 
of the New Testament? Had they suitable opportunities to 
learn the truth? Had they good powers of observation and 
recollection? Had they a disposition to learn and to make 
known the truth? 

In answer to these questions it can be shown, — 

I. That as a historical religion Christianity took its rise with 
the public ministry of Fesus Christ in Palestine near the end 
of the third decade of our era. 

For, in the first place, there are no traces whatever of the 
existence of this religion defore that date, and in the second 


46 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


place, one hundred years /ater, it had already spread itself 
over large provinces of the Roman Empire. And by the 
testimony of Pliny the Younger, in Pontus A.D. 103, we 
learn, that some had abandoned Christianity as long as twenty 
years before, that is, in a.D. 83; while Tacitus? asserts that 
Christ suffered death in Judea under Pontius Pilate, who 
was procurator ten years,—from about A.D. 26 to a.D. 36.3 
Moreover, all the early Christian writers, who speak of this 
point, agree in testifying that Christ was crucified at that time. 

II. That the several books of the New Testament were 
written before the close of the first century.* 

Indeed, most of them were written between A.D. 50 and 
A.D. 80; that is, within fifty years after the death of Christ. 
For — 

(1) The testimony of early Christian writers places the origin 
of these books in the first century. In this respect they all 
agree. There is not, within my knowledge, a single passage 
in any Christian writer of the second, third, or fourth cen- 
turies after Christ, which puts the date of any book of the 
New Testament after the year of our Lord 100. This is 
strong evidence. 

(2) Christian writers of the second century quote from a 


1 Epist. X. 97, cf. X. 98. 

2 Annals XV. 44, cf. Sueton. Vit. Neron. § 16, and Vit. Claud. § 25; also 
Juven. Sat. I. 155, 157, and Euseb. H. E. IV. 9. ~ 

3 “Ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos, quesitissimis penis, adfecit, 
quos, per flagitia invisos, vulgus Christianos adpellabat. Auctor nominis ejus 
Christus, Tiberio imperitante, per Procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio 
adfectus erat; repressaque in prasens exitiabilis superstitio rursus erumpebat, 
non modo per Judzam, originem ejus mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta 
undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque.”’ 

4Lardner (N.) “Credibility of the Gospel History”; Norton (A.) “On the 
Genuineness of the Four Gospels” ; Tischendorf (C.) “When? were our Four 
Gospels Written?”; Tregelles (S. P,) “Canon Muritorianus,”’. etc.; Westcott 
(B. F.) “History of the Canon of the New Test.”; “Introduction to the Study 
of the Four Gospels”; Gaussen (L.) “The Canon ae the Scriptures”; Olshausen 
(F.) “Die Echtheit der vier Canon. Evangelien”; Sanday (W.) “The Gospels 
in the second Century”; Horne (T. H.) “Introduction to the Critical study 
of the Scriptures, ” last edition; Rawlinson (G.) “Historical Evidences,” Lects. 
VI., VIL. VIII. 


The Bible from God. 47. 


large part of these books as authoritative. This, they would 
be unlikely to do, if the books were written in their own 
time; and this, they do not do, in the case of books. which 
are known to have been produced in the second century." 

(3) Zhese writers of the second century show in their style 
the formative influence of the New Testament. The influence 
of the Septuagint alone is hardly sufficient to account for 
their style, though it must be borne in mind when weighing 
the present argument. 

(4) The early adversaries of Christianity, heretical and 
heathen, appealed to the New Testament writings as authorita- 
tzve. The investigations of the last twenty years have added 
much to the value of this kind of evidence, and it cannot now 
be overlooked by those who seem most ready to reject the 
New Testament. 1% 

(5) ZLhey purport to have been written before the close of the 
jirst century. Their writers speak, as eye-witnesses, of the 
ministry of Christ, or as those who were personally acquainted 
with such witnesses. The only portions which may be 
esteemed totally silent as to their date, are the Second and 
Third Epistles of John; and these must have been written 
by the beloved disciplé, or by one who purposely and skil- 
fully copied his style. They do therefore, also; in a certain 
sense, claim to have been written before A.D. I00. 

(6) The style of the New Testament Scriptures indicates 
their origin in the first century of our era. Christianity made 
its appearance in Judea during the fourth decade of that 
century. _ It came with new and mighty power, breathing 
fresh life into the people. And the New Testament writings 
must have been originated in just such a creative epoch. 
There 1s an air of freshness, freedom, and reality about their 

1 See the writers named in the preceding note, and the following :— 

Gieseler (J. C. L.) “ Historisch, kritische Versuch iiber die Entstehung, . . . der 
schriftlichen Evangelien”; Thiersch (M. J.) “Versuch zur Herstellung des his- 
torischen Standpunktes”; Bleek (F.) “Einleitung in das N. T.”; Guericke (H. 
E. F.) “Gesammtgeschichte des N. T.”; Reuss (E.) “Histoire du Canon des 


Saintes Ecritures dans l’Eglise Chretienne*®; Hug (J. L.) “Introduction to 
the N. T.”$; Credner (K. A.) “Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Canon.” 


48 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


language, which forbids us to think of them as the fruit of 
critical research. 

(7) The references to persons and events of that age prove 
them to have been written in the first century. These refer- 
ences are singularly numerous, natural, incautious, and yet 
accurate. No writer of the second century could have made 
them, except by inspiration; and no inspired man would 
have made his writings appear to be of an earlier date than 
they were. 

These reasons are believed to be perfectly conclusive. 

There is abundant evidence in the New Testament itself, 
that its writers were familiar with Palestine in the time of 
Christ.. This evidence will be confirmed by all that is ta be 
given in support of the next statement. 

III. That the books of the New Testament were written 
either by apostles of Christ, or by associates of apostles. 

For:—(1) The early Christian writers affirm this. Their 
testimony is positive and unanimous as to the four Gospels, 
the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of Paul, one of 
Peter, and one of John, comprising eight-ninths of the New 
Testament; and, in the main, though with some hesitation 
on the part of certain writers, they bear witness to the same 
fact respecting the other books of the New Testament. 

We cannot exhibit the evidence in detail, but must refer 
to works on the canon of the New Testament, and introduc- 
tions to its various books. See the writers cited above. 

(2) Many of the New Testament Scriptures claim, either 
directly or indirectly, to have been written by apostles or their 
associates. This is true of the third and fourth Gospels, of 


the Acts, of thirteen Epistles of Paul; of the Epistles of — 


James, Peter, and Jude; and of the Apocalypse; while the 
First Epistle of John purports to have been written by one 
who. had been an eye-witness of our Saviour’s ministry, and 
who could speak with apostolic authority. Such evidence is 
not to be rejected without careful scrutiny. Nothing short 
of statements in the writings which could not have been made 
by the pretended authors, or statements of those who first 


\ 


The Bible from God. 49 


received the writings, is sufficient to nullify this testimony. 
But such statements do not exist. 

(3) The contents and style of the New Testament books prove 
that they were written by apostles or their associates. In 
support of this statement we appeal (a) to the simplicity, 
vividness, particularity, and objectiveness of the narrative 
parts; for these qualities point to writers who were under 
the extraordinary personal influence of Christ. (0) To the 
freshness and power of thought which characterize these 
writings, — qualities which may be accounted for by their 
writers’ acquaintance with Christ, and in no other way so 
well, if at all. (c) To the silence of history in respect to any 
other men able to produce them. The authors of these books 
could hardly have passed away, without leaving other traces 
of their influence. For they were zany, —not one, —and ze- : 
markable, not common men; and they wrote with compara- 
tive independence of one another. 

It is simply absurd to suppose the New Testament Scrip- 
tures written by certain unknown men outside of the apostolic 
circle, — by persons in the first or second century, who have 
left no other traces of their existence. These writers, if not 
apostles, must have been peers of the apostles in influence. 
Where did they live and labor that their names were never 
known to the ages that followed? The four great letters 
ascribed to Paul must, as even Baur admits, have been written 
by him.1. But if these were written by Paul, the other nine 
must have been also. No man who could have produced 
them can be supposed capable of ascribing them falsely to 
the apostles; nor, indeed, can any one else be reasonably 
supposed to have come so near the apostle in thought and 
style. 

Of modern opponents ? to this view of the authorship of 
the New Testament, two persons may be named as most 


1 Compare Farrar (F. W.) “The Witness of History to Christ,” p. 76. 

2 Of their writings, the following may be mentioned: Riggenbach (C. J.) 
“Zeugnisse fiir das Evangelium Johannis”; Ililgenfeld (A.) “ Der Kanon und 
die Kritik des N. T.”; Davidson (S.) “Introduction to the New Test.” last 


50 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


conspicuous, viz.: D. F. Strauss and F. C. Baur. The former 
attempted to resolve the gospel narratives into popular 
“myths” or legends; and the latter, to find their origin in 
the “spirit of the age.” Both were pantheists, denying the 
possibility of miracles. And both have been answered by 
such scholars as Neander, Ullmann, Ebrard, Schaff, Meyer, 
Godet, Fisher, Pressensé, Luthardt,! and others, too nu- 
merous to mention. ; 

After the severest scrutiny, the evidence will be founu 
ample and conclusive as to xearly all the New Testament 
writings; and were those of a slightly doubtful origin set 
aside, the theological system would itself remain unchanged. 
But there is no adequate reason for believing that any book 
of the New Testament is unworthy of its place in the canon. 

IV. That these writers were manifestly competent, upright, 
and, therefore, trustworthy.” 

(a) They were competent. For (1) They were men of good 
judgment. They do not write like enthusiasts or fanatics, 
but like men of sound sense and practical aim. (2) They 
were men of more than average intelligence. This is evident 
from their writings, which are greatly superior in freshness, 
force of thought, and perspicuity of style, to any similar 
productions of that age. (3) The facts which they relate are, 
for the most part, such as could be fairly attested by the 


edition; De Wette (W. M. L.) “An Historical Critical Introduction to the Can- 
onical Books of the N. T.” in many respects valuable, translated by F. Frothingham. 

1 Neander (A.) “Life of Christ,” and “Planting and Training of the Ap, 
Church”; Ullmann (C.) “ Historisch oder Mythisch ?” Ebrard (J. H. A.) “ Kritik 
der Evangelischen Geschichte”; Fisher (G. P.) ‘Essays on the Supernatural 
Origin of Christianity”; Luthardt (C. E.) “ Authorship of the Fourth Gospel ”; 
Sears (E. H.) “The Fourth Gospel, the Heart of Christ”; Sanday (W.) “The 
Fourth Gospel: Was John its Author?” Alexander (W. L.) “Christ and 
Christianity.” 

2 Greenleaf (S.) ‘“‘ Harmony of the Gospels; Introductory Essay”; West (G.) 
“On the Resurrection of Christ”; Macpherson (R.) “ The Resurrection of Jesus 
Christ,” etc.- Lyttleton (L.) “On the Conversion of the Apostle Paul”; Paley 
(W.) “Hore Pauline”; Smith (J.) “The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul,” 
etc.; Paley (W.) “A View of the Evidences of Christianity ;” See also Blunt 
(J. J.) “Undesigned Coincidences in the writings of both the Old and New 
Testaments”; Birks (T. R.) “Horz Evangelice ”; “Tor Apostolic.” 


The Bible from God. 51 


senses. They could be seen or heard, or verified by taste or 
smell. Scientific training, or philosophical, was not needed 
to qualify men to bear witness to such events as are related 
by the evangelists. 

(6) They were upright. This may be inferred 1, From 
the tone of sincerity and earnestness which pervades all their 
writings. 2, From the spirituality of the religious doctrines 
which are inculcated. 3, From the character of the motives 
which are appealed to. . 4, From the purity and perfection 
of the moral principles which are taught. 5, From the style 
of narrative which is employed,—a style which is dis- 
tinguished, (a) For szmplicety: It seems to be a completely 
natural, unadorned expression of what was believed to be 
true. If the composition of the Gospels is a work of art, it 
is art so perfect as to seem like nature. (6) For posztzveness : 
The writers keep to the facts like men under oath, making 
almost no inferences or conjectures. This is strikingly 
manifest in the first three Gospels and in the Acts of the 
Apostles. (¢) For frankness: Nothing seems to be kept 
back because it was of doubtful wisdom. The hard sayings 
of Christ, the apparent’ contradictions of his language, the 
sins and errors of his disciples, — all appear in the record 
without preface or apology.’ (d) For mznuteness: The nar- 
ratives are particular, circumstantial, life-like, giving names 
of persons, places, diseases, and the like, as would be natural 
in the account of an eye-witness. (¢) For objectiveness: The 
writers go through their work as if they had taken no part in 
it, and had nothing at stake in the matter. One could scarcely 
infer from their language that they had forsaken all for 
Christ, and were ready to lay down their lives for his sake. 
They never eulogize his character, and rarely his teaching. 
They scarcely allude to many questions which awaken the 
utmost curiosity in men addicted to religious speculation. 
“In its grand, childlike, and holy simplicity, the narrative 
passes by such questions of the intellect, just as a child 


* 
1 Compare Farrar (F. W.) “The Witness of History to Christ,” p. 76; a 
striking passage. 


52 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


moves among the riddles of nature and of life, as if they 
existed not.” 6, From the perfection of Christ's character, 
—a character which must have been real. For so unique 
and perfect, so truly human and yet manifestly divine is 
this character, that we cannot suppose it to be an idea! 
creation. The four distinct records are diverse, yet harmo- 
nious. So marked are the differences, even in relating the 
same events, that some have rashly inferred contradiction; 
yet so deep and pervading is the harmony, that others have 
inferred transcription. It is impossible to suppose the life 
and character of Christ an zdeal originated by ome of the 
Evangelists, since this view would not account for the 
freedom and diversity in the narratives; and it is equally 
impossible to suppose the zdea/ originated by more than one 
of them, since the zzzty of impression would not be accounted 
for. But if there was such a person as Jesus Christ, whose 
history the Gospels contain, we have no difficulty whatever 
in accounting for the wonderful harmony in diversity which 
they exhibit; since we have, as it were, four portraits of the 
same original, though taken by different artists and from 
different points of view. All this will be yet more evident, 
if our four canonical Gospels be compared with the Apocry- 
phal Gospels, referred to below.! 

7, From the lack of motive to write as they did, if they 
were dishonest. Well may Dryden ask concerning the 
sacred writers, and especially those of the New Testament, 

“How, or why, 
Should all conspire to cheat us with a lie? 
Unasked their pains, ungrateful their advice, 
Starving their gains, and martyrdom their price.” 

There are many good remarks on this topic in Lord Lyttle- 
ton’s treatise on “The Conversion of St. Paul.” If the 


1 Da Costa (I.) “ The Four Witnesses”; Westcott (B. F.) “Introduction to - 


the Study of the Four Gospels”; Neander (A.) “Life of Christ”; Ellicott 
(C. J.) “Life of Christ”; Andrews (S. J.) “The Life of our Lord upon the 
Earth”; Young (J.) “The Christ of History”; Lange (J. P.) “ Life of Jesus ”; 
Farrar (F. W.) “Life of Christ”; Seeley (J. R.) “Ecce Homo”; Parker (J.) 
“Ecce Deus”; Alexander (W. L.) “Christ and Christianity”; Keim (T.) “The 
History of Jesus of Nazara.” See also Cowper, “The Apocryphal Gospels.” 


ee 


The Bible from God. 53 


writers of the New Testament bore false witness in respect 
to the life and teachings of Christ, they did it with no prospect 
of personal gain in this life, or in that which is to come. 

(c) They were trustworthy. This follows from their com- 
petency and uprightness. As competent, they were able to 
utter the truth; as upright, they were sure to do it. 

But we cannot, it is said, determine the character of 
witnesses, without subjecting them to cross-examination. 
Says Greenleaf on Evidence, i. 138, “It is found indis- 
pensable, as a test of truth, and to the proper administration 
of justice, that every living witness should, if possible, be 
subjected to the ordeal of a cross-examination, that | it may 
appear what were-his powers of perception ; his opportunities 
for observation ; his attentiveness in observing; the strength 
of his recollection; and his disposition to speak the truth.” 

This is doubtless a correct statement, in respect to living 
witnesses. But the comment of J. H. Newman is also 
correct: “It has been said, that no testimony can fairly be 
trusted, which has not passed the ordeal of a legal examina- 
tion. Yet, calculated as that mode of examination un- 
doubtedly is, to elicit truth, surely truth may be elicited by 
- other ways also. Independent and circumstantial writers 
may confirm a fact as satisfactorily as witnesses in court. 
They may be questioned and cross-questioned, and, moreover, 
brought up for re-examination in any succeeding age.” 

Our examination of the New Testament records has been 
of this nature; and the result is plain, —a@ conviction of thetr 
historical trustworthiness. They are entitled to full. credence, 
when stating clearly matters of fact ; and a discovery now and 
then of minor, unintentional errors would not invalidate this 
conclusion. The result now reached may appear small, and 
the process of reaching it slow; but it is all-important for the 
investigation which is to follow. 

II. THESE WRITINGS PROVE THAT JESUS CHRIST WAS AN 
INFALLIBLE TEACHER. 

By an “infallible teacher” is meant one who teaches truth 


1 “Essays on Miracles,” p. 74. 


54 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


without any mixture of error; or one whose instruction, in 
whatever form it may be given, will prove, if rightly appre- 
hended, to be wholly correct. Such a teacher need not be 
strictly omniscient; but if he is not omniscient, he must 
clearly perceive the limits of his knowledge, and confine his 
teaching within those limits. The teaching of prophets and 
apostles could only be infallible by restricting it to what the 
Holy Spirit moved them to say. 

A teacher from God may be presumed to know the work 
entrusted to him. If he defines his work, it will be safe to 
make his definition the basis of study in attempting to 
ascertain the nature of that work. And it would plainly be 
unsafe to ascribe to him any attribute or authority which he 
disclaims. Our discussion of the point now in question may, 
therefore, begin with a survey of the claims put forth by 
Jesus Christ as a Teacher. Taking his own words for our 
guide, What did he know, and how did he teach? 

1 What did he claim to know ? 

(2) He claimed to know heavenly things directly. — John 
Vill. 38; lili. 11=13, 

(2) He claimed to know the Father fully and exclusively. — 
Matt. xi. 27; John vii. 28-29; viii. 55; vi. 46; X. 15; Xvii. 
25 —26. < 

(c) He claimed to be one with the Father.——John x. 30- 
38; xvil. 10-22. And, by claiming this unity, he virtually 
declared his teaching divine. 

(d).He claimed that his words were his Father's words. — 
John vii. 16; viii. 28; xii. 49; xiv. 10-24; xvil. 8. 

(ec) He claimed that his words were immutably true. — Mark 
xiii. 31; John xiv. 6. 

This, in brief, was the claim of Christ; and it amounts toa 
claim of infallibility, or entire correctness in his teaching. 
Did his manner correspond with this verbal claim ? 

2. How did he teach? 

(a) He spoke almost always in the first person singular, 
with language of great authority. There are but two or 
three exceptions to the former part of this statement on 
record, 


The Bible from God. Be 


(4) He spoke as if he were the final and perfect Teacher. — 
Matt. v. 17 sq.; xix. 8, 9. 

(c) He represented salvation as depending on the treatment 
of his words. — Mark viii. 38; Luke ix. 26; John xii. 47; xiv. 
Bee UxV. 7, 

(d) He always spoke as one perfectly master of his theme 
and of the occasion, — never confessing that he was mistaken 
on any point, and never seeming to work his way up from a 
lower to a higher view. He always looked down upon his 
subject.” 

This, in brief, was the manner of Christ; and, on any fair 
interpretation of it, it was in perfect harmony with his claim 
to infallibility. It may, therefore, be-said that his whole 
spirit and bearing as a teacher support, in a measure, his 
definite claim. Or, if any one prefer another form of state- 
ment, the two were in such perfect accord as to constitute a 
double claim to infallibility. They make it almost certain 
that his sense of perfect knowledge as to all that he taught 
was constant, natural, and controlling. 

And the following circumstances justify our assent to the 
correctness of this claim. 

I. His immediate disciples were convinced of its rightfulness. 
They were intimatcly associated with him for a period of 
nearly three years. They did not always understand his 
words, nor were they always satisfied with his course of 
action. Some of them appear to have been critical and 
unsympathetic. Yet, (1) They ascribe to him perfect knowl- 
edge. — Matt. ix. 4: “And Jesus, knowing their thoughts, 
Said, ete: (cf Marki, 8; Johr ul. 24,25; Acts i.24; Rev, ii. 
23; John xvi. 30; xxi. 17; Vi. 64; xviil. 4). (2) They declare 
him to be full of truth, and the source of truth.— John i. 14: 
“And dwelt among us full of grace and truth,” (cf. i. 16). 
(3) They preach his doctrine as pre-eminently the truth. —2 Cor. 
iv. 2 sq.: “ By manifestation of the truth commending our- 
selves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God,” (cf. 


1 See Parker (J.) “‘ The Paraclete,” p. 63 sq., for a similar thought. 


56 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


Gal. 11.5; Eph. iv. 21; 2 Tim. ii. 15). And certaimiy the 
fact that Jesus Christ convinced his most intimate friends of 
the rightfulness of his claims is some confirmation of them. 
Yet they might be mistaken; and their belief is not therefore 
of itself decisive. 

Il. Ais moral character appears to have been perfect.‘ In 
support of this statement we appeal : — 

(2) To his estimate of himself, (1) As meek and lowly in 
heart. — Matt. xi. 29; (cf. xxvi. 42; John Vv. 303 vi. 38; iv. 
34; vil. 18). (2) As doing always his Father's will. — John 
Vill. 29-46; xv. 10. 

(2) To his disciples’ estimate of him. — 1 Pet. ii. 22 ; “Who 
did no sin.” — Ro. xv. 3;*Phil.-ii. 8; 2 Cor. v)2nguiemeeam 
15; vil. 26; 1 Johnii. 29; ii. 7; Acts. i. 14; Vile 2am 
1 Cor. i. 2; John v. 23; andthelike. And his disciples were 
not likely to mistake the character of Christ in this respect. 
Had he been proud or unsubmissive, he would have betrayed 
this spirit to his followers; they would have felt its presence, 
and would not have been able to think of him as without sin. 

(c) To the total impression made by the record of his life. 
The value of this as evidence cannot easily be over-rated. It 
does not depend on minute points of criticism which only 
a scholar can understand. It depends upon the broader 
features and general tone of the narratives, and can be appre- 
ciated by every upright mind. The eye of an unlearned but 
thoughtful reader is almost sure to'take in the great features 
of the picture, and judge them correctly.’ 

Reference may also be made, at this point, to the impres- 
sion which. his bearing made upon Judas, Pilate, and the wife 
of Pilate, all of whom appear to have been assured of the 
moral integrity of Jesus. — Matt. xxvii. 4; 24, 19. 

1 Ullmann (C.) “The Sinlessness of Jesus an Evidence for Christianity” 
Bushnell (H.) “ The Character of Jesus forbidding his possible classification with 
Men”; Schaff (P.) “The Person of Christ”; Dorner (J. A.) “The Sinless Per- 
fection of Christ ” in Am. Presby. and Theol. Rev. for 1863; Seeley (J. K.) “Ecce 
1lomo”; Parker (J.) “Ecce Deus”; Hovey (A.) ‘‘ Madison Avenue Lectures,” p. 


12. sq-; Row (C. A.) “The Jesus of the Evangelists.’ 
2 Leathes (S.) “ Witness of the Old Test. to Christ,” pp. 172-173. 


The Bible from God. 57 


It may also be remarked that the evangelists do not appear 
to have chosen their materials with any special view to 
proving the moral perfection of Christ—See Matt. xix. 17; 
vill. 28-34; Mark xi. 12-14; Luke xxiv. 28. 

Ill. Azs doctrines agree with his claim to infallibility.' 

(1) lz their simplicity, A child can understand them. 
What he says of God’s care and love, of man’s duty and 
happiness, is perfectly direct and intelligible. To love God 
with all the heart; to forsake all for Christ; to be watchful, 
prayerful, obedient, humble; to love one’s neighbor as one’s 
self, even if that neighbor be a stranger or a foe; to be loyal 
subjects, faithful husbands, bountiful givers; in a word, to be 
like Christ himself in love to God and man, —all this is set 
forth in the clearest speech imaginable. The chief thought, 
the essential doctrine, is placed before the mind in its naked 
verity and beauty. 

(2) Lz their self-consistency. ‘This is no less remarkable. 
Every man knows how hard it is to state one truth of a system 
correctly, without putting it in connection with several others. 
The human mind is not many-sided and comprehensive 
enough to hold all the relations, and see all the phases, of a 
truth at once, so that a wrong statement of it would be next 
to impossible. But the mind of Christ did this. His various 
teachings are in deepest harmony with one another. His 
views of God and of man, of piety and of morality, of life here 
and judgment hereafter, are always self-consistent. 

(3) Jz their moral purity. This is absolute. A higher 
standard cannot even be conceived. There is no real virtue 
which they do not inculcate in its best form, and no vice 
which they do not condemn in its earliest germ. Says Dr. 
Peabody, of the ethical teaching of Jesus, “Who can add to 
it? Who can take from it? What imaginable case of 


1 Erskine (R.) “ Internal Evidence of the Truth of Christianity ”; Jenyns (S.) 

On the Internal Evidence of the Christian Religion”; Harris (S.) “The 
Demands of Infidelity satisfied by Christianity,” Bib. Sac. XIII. pp. 272-314; 
Peabody (A. P.) “Immutable Morality,” Address at Brown University; Bayne 
(P.) “The Testimony of Christ to Christianity.” 


58 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


obligation does it not meet? In what imaginable case is 
departure from it safe? We can conceive of no other prin- 
ciples than those which it embodies.” 

(4) lu their comprehensiveness. This is wonderful. The 
precepts of Christ are principles. They apply to innumerable 
instances. They expand as we study them. Sometimes one 
of them is seen to comprise all duty. Such, for example, is 
the golden rule, properly understood; and the same may be 
said of the first commandment of the law. 

(5) lu their practicalness. They were uttered for the 
purpose of leading men to God and duty; not as theoretical 
views interesting to the philosopher and student, but as 
precepts of life, for the good of the suffering and the guilty. 
Jesus was not a philosopher, but a Saviour; and all the 
principles which he taught had a direct bearing upon the 
salvation of men. 

(6) Lu their good influence. This was marked even during 
his life; but it has increased with the lapse of years, and is 
now probably greater than ever before. A large part of the 
intelligence and virtue, not to say piety, which now blesses 
mankind, is due to the religion of Christ ; and no small part 
of the power of his religion for good may be traced to the 
doctrines which he taught. In a sense, all of it may be traced 
to them. 

IV. Many predictions made by him have been fulfilled. 
Not every one who utters a true prophecy is infallible in all 
his speech: but a knowledge of future events, concealed from 
human view, is good evidence that God is with him who 
possesses it; and a permanent possession of such knowledge 
is evidence of the permanent presence of God with the 
possessor. 

Now (1) Christ predicted his own death. — Matt. xii. 40: 
“For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly 
of the fish, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three 
nights in the heart of the earth” (cf. xvi. 21-23; xvii. 22, 
23; xx. 17—I10, 22, 23; xxvi. 1, 2; Mark x 38, 39; Toga 
44; Xil. 50; xill. 33; xvil 22, 25; John il, 19— 225 xen 
32 - 34). 


The Bible from God. 59 


(2) He predicted his disciples conduct. —Mark xiv. 18-21: 
“One of you that eateth with me will betray me,” sq. (cf. 
John xiii. 11, 18-26; Matt. xxvi. 31-34; Mark xiv. 72.) 

(3) He predicted other events affecting them. — John xxi. 18. 
“ But when thou art old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, 
and another shall gird thee, and shall carry thee whither thou 
wouldst not” (cf. Matt. xx. 23; Mark xiv. 13-16; Matt. x. 
17—22; John xv. 20). 

(4) He also foretold the destruction of Ferusalem. — Matt. 
xxiv. 2: “Verily I say unto you, there shall not be left here 
one stone upon another that shall not be thrown down”’ (cf. 
xxiv. 4, 5, 23-26; Mark xiii. 14; Luke xxi. 12, 16, 20, sq.). 

Now, in view of all the circumstances, the exact fulfilment 
of these predictions is a good reason for believing that all 
his teaching was true. 

To this!it is objected by some, that one of his predictions 
has failed; for he foretold his own return to earth before the 
generation then living had passed away. — Matt. xxiv. 34. 

-In reply to this objection, it may be remarked, (1) That the 
word yeved may possibly be equivalent to yzvog, and signify a 
particular race or kind of men. This is maintained by 

Dorner, Storr, Auberlen, Alford, and others.* (2) That the 
reference is not to a visible return of Christ, but to the 
destruction of Jerusalem, —a type of the final overthrow of the 
wicked. — Bengel, Robinson, and others. 

V. GREAT MIRACLES WERE WROUGHT BY HIM. Miracles 
are changes in nature, which must be ascribed to supernatural 
agency; or events in the world of sense, which, according to 
sound principles of reason, should be ascribed to extraordinary 
action on the part of God.’ 


1 Grimm (C. L. W.) “Lexicon Greco Latinum in Libros N. T.” s. v. yeved 

2. “b. translate; genus hominum ingeniis, studiis, moribus sibé simillimorum, et 
‘ quidem malo sensu ferversum genus; Matt. xvii. 17; Mark ix.19; Luke ix. 41; 
xvi. 8.” See Bib. Sac. VII. pp. 452-478; IX. pp. 329-354, 449 - 4607 ; Dorner (J. 
A.) “De Oratione Christi eschatologica, Matt. xxiv. 1-36, asseverata”’; Robinson 
(E.) “The Coming of Christ as announced in Matt. xxiv. 29-31.” Bib. Sac. 1834. 
2 Hume (D.) “ Of Miracles,” vol. II. of “Essays”; Powell (B.) “On the Study 

nf the Evidences of Christianity,” in “ Essays and Reviews”; Farmer (H.) “On 


60 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


A supernatural revelation is, therefore, a miraculous revela- 
tion. But the revelation, if made to one person for the 
benefit of others, needs attestation or ratification; and this 
ratification must be (1) something addressed to other men, 
and (2) something which must in reason be referred to the 
source of the revelation. Healing the paralytic, in proof of 
authority to forgive his sins, is a case in point. 

The miracles of Christ served a double purpose, (1) to 
reveal his character and spirit, in which light they are part of 
his teaching; and (2) to attest the truth of his claims, in which 
light they are equivalent to the seal or signature of God, 
indorsing his authority. — Ex. iv. 1-9; 2 Kings i. 10; Matt. 
xl. 3-5; Mark ii. 10, 11; John il. 23; ii. 2; vijgGpeaee 
16, 30 - 333 x. 25, 38; xl. 4, 40, 423 Xil. 305 ive yee 
30, 31; Acts iil. 22; x. 37-43; Heb. ii. 3,4. Inethed@ormecr 
respect, as well as in the latter, they were superhuman, 
divine, and so confirmatory of his teaching. Thus, doctrine 
confirms miracle, and miracle, doctrine. Indeed, doctrine, 
miracle, life, resurrection, and the effect of all on the world, 
support one another.* 

But against the occurrence of miracles many objections 
have been pressed, of which the following deserve particular 
attention : — 


Miracles’; Campbell (G.) “Treatise on Miracles”; Douglass (J.) “A Letter on 
the Criterion of Miracles”; Wardlaw (R.) “On Miracles”; Mozley (J. B.) “On 
Miracles”; Cumming (J.) “On our Lord’s Miracles”; Warington (G.) “Can we 
believe in Miracles?” Hovey (A.) “The Miracles of Christ”; Westcott (B. F.) 
“Characteristics of the Gospel Miracles”; Bushnell (H.) “ Nature and the Super- 
natural”; McCosh (J.) “The Supernatural in the Natural”; Mansel (H. L.) 
“On Miracles as Evidences of Christianity,” in “ Aids to Faith”; Heurtley (C. 
A.) “ Miracles,” in “Replies to Essays and Reviews”; Skinner (T. H.) “ Mn- 
acles the Proof of Christianity” in Am. Presb. and Theol. Rev. for 1863, p. 177 sq. 

1 Steinmeyer (F. L.) “Die Wunderthaten des Herrn”; Westcott (B. F.) 
“ Characteristics of the Gospel Miracles”; Trench (R. C.) “On Miracles”; 
Fisher (G. P.) “On the Christian Miracles” in “Essays on the Supernatural 
Origin of Christianity”; Fitzgerald (W.) “ Miracles” in “Smith’s Dict. of the 
Bible,” Am. ed.; Seelye (J. H.) “ Miracles,” in “ Boston Lectures, Christianity 
an. Skepticism”; Miiller (J.) ““Disputatio de Miraculorum Jesu Christi natura,” 
etc.; Késtlin (J.) “De Miraculorum que Jesus et primi ejus discipuli fecerunt 
natura et ratione.” 


The Bible from God. 61 


1. Human testimony for miracles is nullified by man’s 
predisposition to believe in them. Says Lecky: “It is, how- 
ever, the fundamental error of most writers on miracles, that 
they confine their attention to two points, — the possibility of 
the fact, and the nature of the evidence. There is a third ele- 
ment, which, in these questions, is of practical importance, — 
the predisposition of men in certain stages of society towards 
the miraculous, which is so strong, that miraculous stories are 
invariably circulated and credited, and which makes an amount 
of evidence that would be quite sufficient to establish a 
natural fact altogether inadequate to establish a supernatural 
one.” The same thought is emphasized by David Hume in 
his famous attack upon the evidence for miracles, though 
with special reference to miracles which are said to have 
been wrought for religious ends. 

But the tendency of mankind referred to has a double 
bearing. For it is not limited to men “in certain stages of 
society,’ but is almost universal. Indeed, the frequency 
with which persons who reject the testimony for the miracles 
of Christ accept the evidence which is offered for spiritual 
manifestations, and the like, has shown that skepticism and 
credulity often dwell together in the same mind. And the 
predisposition insisted upon by Hume and Lecky is, in 
reality, both an argument for caution in accepting the claim 
of any event to a supernatural character, and a reason for 
believing that miracles are included in God’s plan of govern- 
ing the human race. 

For, speaking generally, the spurious presupposes the 
genuine; the counterfeit imitates the true. If God has 
inclined us, by a secret and well-nigh ineradicable tendency 
of our religious nature, to almost expect miracles in certain 
emergencies of human history, the ready assent given by 
multitudes to pretended miracles is at once explained; for 
nothing is more characteristic of man, in his present 
condition, than the habit of following blindly a constitu- 
tional bias of his nature. Yet nothing is more certain than 
the fact that every normal bias points first in the direction 


62 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


of truth, and, if followed wisely and cautiously, will lead to 
truth.! 

2. The observed uniformity of nature ts incompatible with 
the occurrence of mtracles at any time. This may be called 
the objection of the present day to miracles. It was the 
chief pillar on which Hume’s argument against the credibility 
of miracles rested. For he said, —(a@) That our belief in the 
laws of nature rests on a “uniform, firm, unalterable expe- 
rience.” (6) That our belief in human testimony rests on a 
“variable experience.” (c) That a miracle is an event “con- 
trary to uniform experience, when the circumstances are the 
same.” ‘That a dead man should come to life is a miracle, — 
because that has never been observed in any age or country.” 
(2) That the best human testimony in favor of miracles can 
only justify doubt. (e) That such testimony may be imagined 
as would justify examination and, perhaps, belief, if the miracle 
alleged had no connection with religion. But if it had such 
connection, no human testimony would deserve the least 
attention. 

But this argument is unsound, (1) Because it ignores 
the moral government of God. (2) Because it confounds 
experience and testimony. (3) Because it fails to discrimi- 
nate between different kinds of testimony.” (4) Because it 
begs the question by the definition which it gives to the word 
“miracle.” (5) Because it discriminates against miracles 
connected with religion, and so against religion itself. 

It may be observed that Hume not only begs the question 
by defining a miracle, an event “that has never been 
observed in any age or country,” but also renders a second 
miracle impossible; for a second event of the kind could not, 
by this definition, be a miracle, —that is, an event “that has 
never been observed in any age or country.” 


1 See Butler (J.) “ Analogy,” Part II. ch. 7. “It is objected further, that, 
however it has happened, the fact is, that mankind have, in different ages, been 
strangely deluded with pretences to miracles and wonders. But it is by no 
means to be admitted, that they have been oftener, or are at all more liable to be 
deceived by these than by other pretences.” 

2 Chalmers, “The Miraculous and Internal Evidences, etc.,” pp. 70-146. 


The Bible from God. 63 


It raay be remarked also, (a) that one of the chief ends for 
waich miracles are said to have been wrought forbids their 
indefinite multiplication. Customary events are not the 
fittest credentials for an extraordinary messenger. (0) That 
the fact that few events are miraculous no more proves that 
none are miraculous than the fact that few mountains are 
volcanoes proves that none are volcanoes. (c) That man 
himself, within certain narrow limits, is free, having power to 
act upon the forces and sequences of material nature, — to 
disturb them, to resist them; to combine them, to guide 
them, to re-enforce them, — how much more, then, may God, 
the Infinite Mind, control, supplement, overpower, or super- 
sede the forces of nature, to accomplish a high moral 

‘purpcse! The introduction of new races proves that he does 
this. 

3. The true view of God’s perfection is inconsistent with 
the occurrence of miracles at any time. For, if God interposes 
to disturb the laws of nature, he repudiates his own work. A 
miracle, therefore, supposes imperfection in the work of 

God. 

In reply to this, it may be remarked, — 

(@ It is by no means self-evident that a world, independent 
of God, complete in itself, and needing no care or help in any 
emergency, would bea better world than one dependent on 
him, and needing his care and help. The oak is not neces- 
sarily better than the vine.’ The greatest independence of 
the creature conceivable might not be the best thing for the 
universe, embracing both Creator and creatures. And, if a 
universe comprehends in itself created beings who are morai, 
and are to be trained by moral influences, it cannot be shown 
that a need of divine interposition, making natural forces 
bend to the exigencies of moral order, would be an imperfec- 
tion. 


1 Butler (J.) “Analogy,” Part II. ch. 3. “Justas if,” says John Foster, “the 
order of nature had been constituted by some other and greater Being, and zz 
trusted to the Almighty to be administered, under an obligation never to suspend, 
for a moment, the fixed laws.” — “Christian Morals,” p. 216. 


64 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


(6) The Christian doctrine of miracles assigns them a place 
in the eternal plan of God. He is supposed to introduce 
them whenever, and only when, the highest order and good 
of the universe require them. “They are consequents pal- 
pable to the eye, but whose antecedents belong to the infinite 
laws of order which you cannot measure, since they are out 
of sight. The same consequents were never given before, 
because the same antecedents were never given.”? Hence, 
moral law or reason, instead of mere physical force, bears 
rule in all worlds. “ Lex est perpetua voluntas Dei,” observes 
Zwingle. Once admit the existence of a personal Creator, 
all-wise and most-merciful, and this appears to be the only 
natural view of his relation to the universe. 

(c) Miracles do not violate the essential order of nature, — 
the law of cause and effect. They only suppose that an 
invisible power, for an important end, sometimes directs, 
assists, or overcomes the forces of nature. The action of the 
human will does this on a small scale; and there can be no 
absurdity in supposing that the action of the divine will may 
do the same on a larger scale, for a sufficient reason. No 
force of nature is dishonored by being overcome by a greater” 
force; and no one can doubt that moral order is a higher 
good than physical order.* 

4. The view that God ts a blind force tmmanent in nature 
renders the idea of miracles absurd. This statement is 
unanswerable. If there is no personal God,‘ miracles are 
incredible. If nature is all, then the forces of nature will 
always have their way. Hence, Baur and Strauss, resting on 
their denial of any God but nature, were consistent in deny- 
ing the possibility of miracles. Pantheism is fer se a rejection 
of the Christian religion; but Pantheism is false, and infer- 
ences from it are worthless. 

It should be recollected that the objections against mir- 


1 Sears (E. H.) “ The Fourth Gospel, the Heart of Christ,” p. 24. 

2 Chalmers (T.) “Institutes of Theology,” I. p. 170, note; Channing (W. F.) 
“Dudleian Lecture on the Evidence of Revealed Religion,” Works III. p. 105 
sq-; Smith (H. I.) “Am. Presb. and Theol. Rev.” for 1864, p. 143 


The Dible from God. 65 


acles, if valid at all, are conclusive against a supernatural 
revelation of the divine will in any form, and that the 
occurrence of a single miracle establishes the worthlessness 
of these objections. If Christ really existed as a supernatural 
being, or if he rose from the dead, according to the Gospels, 
the objections which we have been reviewing have no force 
at all. In evidence of the fact that such a person as Jesus 
Christ lived in Palestine, and was crucified under Pontius 
Pilate, we may appeal to the entire New Testament, and, 
indeéd, to the existence of Christianity. The fact is not now 
denied. In evidence of the fact that Jesus Christ was a 
supernatural being, we may appeal, in like manner, to the 
plain testimony of the Gospels and the other books of the 
New Testament. The fact can only be denied by mutilating 
the Gospels, by arbitrarily rejecting their testimony on 
certain points, while it is admitted on others. — See “ Part V. 
ch. 1. The Deity of Christ.” In evidence of the resurrection 
of Christ from the dead, our appeal is also to the New 
Testament. This evidence has been most strenuously 
assailed, but without success; for it is invulnerable. 

We hold, therefore, that all objections to occasional 
miracles for a high moral end are futile; but we concede the 
propriety of carefully scrutinizing the evidence for an alleged 
miracle before admitting its reality. For it is perfectly true 
that a miracle,viewed as a mere phenomenon of nature, is 
improbable. Were it not, it would be useless in connection 
with a supernatural word from God. ‘So far as a miracle, 
in itself, and apart from its relations to a special divine 
intention, is probable, just so far does it lose its usefulness 
as a sign of God’s interest in that word.’ What, then, can 
be said of the testimony offered by the evangelists to the 
wonderful works of Christ ? 

(1) The number of witnesses is ample. (2) Their integrity 
is above suspicion. (3) Their powers of observation and 
memory were excellent. (4) The phenomena which they 


1 Park, in Smith’s “ Dict. of the Bible,” Am. ed. 


66 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


attest were sensible. (5) Their testimony itself is positive. 
(6) Their testimony is independent. (7) Their testimony is 
substantially harmonious. (8) Their testimony makes the 
teaching of Christ grow naturally out of his miracles. (9) 
The aim of Christ’s miracles was Godlike. (10) The refer- 
ences to attendant circumstances are numerous and accurate. 

Now, it is perfectly evident that this testimony is decisive, 
provided miracles are not rationally impossible or absurd; 
for it is of the very best kind, and there is no rebutting 
testimony. No one who was present pretends to deny the 
events recorded by the evangelists; and only a person who 
was present could bear witness that such events did not then 
and there take place. 

But, as we have seen, miracles are not absurd; they are 
not even, in all circumstances, improbable. Says Paley, 
‘Miracles are no more improbable than these two proposi- 
tions: (1) That a future state of existence should be destined 
by God for his human creation; and (2) That, being so 
destined, he should acquaint them with it.” Says Mill, “ The 
only antecedent improbability which can be ascribed to the 
miracle is the improbability that God would interfere with 
the regular course ot events to perform it.”’? 

It appears, therefore, that if the welfare of his creatures 
can be promoted, on the whole, by miracles, God, as wise 
and benevolent, may be supposed to work them, and to work 
as many of them as will, in the highest degree, promote this 
end. Beyond that limit, he cannot be supposed to go; unless, 
indeed, his own glory may be conceived of as another end to 
be secured by miraculous interposition. Perhaps it is un- 
necessary for us to attempt any separation between these 
ends; they may exactly coincide: whatever tends to secure 
one of them may equally tend to secure the other. 

Conclusion.—In view of the facts which we have thus 
drawn froin trustworthy records of Christ’s life, we must 
prenounce him INFALLIBLE, and receive all his words as 


1 See also Professor Harris (S.) in Bib. Sac. XIII. p. 279, and Professor 
Lewis (T.) “ Divine Human in the Scriptures,” p. 149. 


The Bible from God. 67 


true ; for these facts cannot be reconciled with the hypothesis 
that he was either a deceiver or self-deceitved. They are 
intelligible and credible only on the supposition that he was 
what he claimed to be,—a humble, holy, INFALLIBLE Being. 

III. THESE RECORDS PROVE THAT CHRIST PROMISED THE 
INSPIRATION OF THE HOLy SPIRIT TO HIS APOSTLES, BY WHOM, 
WITH SOME OF THEIR ASSOCIATES, THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS 
WRITTEN. ; 

In this statement the word “inspiration” is used as a 
theological term, to signify a work of the Spirit upon the mind, 
rather than upon the heart; upon the intellect, rather than 
upon the affections. In other words, it denotes a work of illu- 
mination, rather than a work of conviction or of sanctification. 

The promise referred to in this statement may be found in 
jenmesivw15—17, 20; xv. 26, 27; xvi. 7-15; Acts i. 5,8; 
Matt. x. 19, 20; Luke xii. 11, 12; and it may be said, — 

(1) To embrace several particulars. Thus the Holy Spirit 
was promised,—(@) As one who would abide with the 
apostles as a permanent Helper (John xiv. 16); (4) as one 
who would recall to their minds the words of Christ (John 
xiv. 26); (c) as one who would make known to them truth not 
fully taught by Christ (John xvi. 12); (d@) as one who would 
reveal future events to them (John xvi. 13); (e) as one who 
would guide them into the whole doctrine of Christ (John xiv. 
26; xvi. 13; Acts v. 8); and (f) as one who would give them 
wisdom and utterance in times of danger (Matt. x. 19, 20; 
Luke xii: 11,12): 

(2) To refer primarily to the apostles. For, (a2) It was 
addressed to them, with no express reference to a wider 
application (except in John xiv. 16; xvi. 8-11). (6) In 
certain particulars, it was obviously limited to them (John 
xiv. 27; xvi. 12). (¢) In others, it referred to their special 
duties (John xv. 26; Actsi. 5, 8). (Z) In one case, it had in 
view their approaching trials (Matt. x. 19, 20; Luke xii. 
II, 12). (e) In some of its phraseology, it pointed to a work 
of the Syirit which was specially needed by the apostles, 
that is, a work of divine illumination, — (a) by designating 


68 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


the Spirit three several times as “the Spirit of the Truth” 
—a title nowhere else given to him (except in 1 John iv. 6); 
(0) by describing him as a teacher of new truth; and (¢) by 
making him a revealer of things to come. Diversities of 
gifts were needed by the church; and the gift which the 
apostles needed more than any others at that time, or since, 
was extraordinary divine illumination. 

It may be remarked, that certain expressions inethe last 
discourse of Christ with his disciples are true of all Christians, 
because the conditions of discipleship were the same for 
them and for others. 

Moreover, certain expressions in Matt. x. show that Christ 
adapted his words to the circumstances and needs of the 
apostles after his own death. Their temporary mission was 
typical of their permanent work. 

It may also be remarked, that Paul was a “called apostle,” 
and, therefore, entitled to a fulfilment of Christ’s promise to 
the eleven. For, (a) he claimed to be an apostle (Rom. i. 
1; 1 Cor.i. 1;ix. 1; andoften). (4) His claim was recognized 
by other apostles (2 Pet. iii. 15, 16; 1 Pet. i. 12; Gal. ii. 6-9). 
(c) Miracles were-wrought at his word (Acts xiv. 3; xix. II, 12; 
XX. Q—I2; xxviii. 3-6; 2 Cor. xii. 12). 

That the promise in question was specially meant for the 
apostles may also be inferred from several other considera- 
tions; for example, — 

(a) From their own interpretation of it (Acts il. 16-33; 
iv. 8; v. 32; X. 19; xi. 12; xill. 9; xv. 28; xvi. 6 7 see 
sq. 3 Gal. i, 11, 12; Revi. sq. su dime 

(2) From their professing to speak the word or command 
of God (1 Cor. ii: 13; 1 Thess. il. 13; iv. 15; 2 Dhessaiieny 
2 Cor. i. 18 sq.; Col. iit. 16; 1 John’ ii. 14; (eee 
Titus i, 3; 1 Cor. vii. 25; Rom: xvi. 26; x. 17;@eveeeene 
Ey Pet a. 23,3-Eph. iil. 3 5) ,0; tGdlalae 1 iulo)e 

(c) From the authority with which they speak, —as if they 
knew the will of God. Thus Paul, in 1 Thess. iv. 2; 2 Thess. 
li. 15; ili. 4, 6, 10, 12, 14; 1 Cor. vil. 17; Vv. 3—=5queeee 
8-9, claims inspired authority; which, however, as he in- 
timates, only puts him on a level with the older apostles. 


The Bible from God. 69 


(2) From their recognition of the divine authority of the 
Old Testament, while putting their own teaching on the 
same plane with it (1 Pet. i. 10-12; 2 Pet. i. 1I9g—21; 2 Tim. 
iii, 16-17; (cf. Rev. xxi. 14); Acts ii. 15 sq. ; and Eph. ii. 20; 
Heb. ii. 4; 2 Pet: iii, 15, 16). 

(e) From the plentitude of spiritual gifts which they pos- 
sessed, enabling them to direct even inspired teachers (Matt. 
xvi. 17-19; xviii. 18; John xx. 23; Eph. ii. 20; Rev. xxi. 
ea; Acts vill. 16=—19; 1 Cor. xiv. 18, 36, 37; 2 Tim. i. 6 
(cE y Tim. iv. 14); 1 Cor. xii. 28, 29; Eph. iv. 11). 

It is, therefore, evident that the promise made by Christ to 
his disciples was intended primarily and, in part, excluszvely 
for them. It is not then directly, and in all its language, 
applicable to Christians of every age. Yet all Christians 
may have the full benefit of it mediately; for all may have 
the assistance of the Spirit in studying the inspired truth of 
Scripture. 

But our third proposition adds, “dy whom, with some of 
their associates, the New Testament was written.’ And in 
proof of this, it may be observed, that the best Christian 
scholars admit that all the books of the New Testament, — 
except the Gospels of Mark and Luke, the Acts of the 
Apostles, the Epistles of James and Jude, the Second Epistle 
of Peter, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, — were written by 
apostles, and that these were written by associates of 
apostles. We have proved that the former are inspired, by 
proving that their writers, the apostles, were inspired; but 
what shall be said of the latter ? 

1. That the books written by associates of the apostles must 
have had, if necessary, the sanction of the apostles themselves} 


1 See the Articles on Mark, Luke, James, and Jude, and on the books at- 
tributed to them, in Smith’s “Dict. of the Bible;” McClintock and Strong, “ Dic- 
tionary of Historical, Ecclesiastical, and Doctrinal Theology”; Fairbairn (f.) 
“Imperial Bible Dictionary”; Kitto (J.) “Bible Cyclopedia,” ed. by W. L. 
Alexander; Winer (G. B.) “ Biblisches Real-wérterbuch” ; Herzog “ Real-Ency- 
klopadie”; Schenkel (D.) “ Bibel-Lexicon”; Wetzer und Welte, “ Kirchen-Lex- 
icon”; “Nouvelle Encyclopédie Theologique; Dictionnaire des Prophéties, et 
des Miracles ” (vols. xxiv. and xxv.). 


70 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


They could have had that sanction by submitting them to 
the correction of the aposties ; for John, at least, lived twenty 
or thirty years after they were written. And early tradition 
asserts that they were, some of them, indorsed by apostles, — 
as Mark’s by Peter, and Luke’s by Paul. James and Jude 
were sons of Mary and brothers of Christ. 

(1) Mark is reported by the early Christians to have been 
the amanuensis, or interpreter, of Peter (cf. 1 Peter v. 13), 
and to have based his Gospel on Peter’s teaching. There is 
no reason to doubt the substantial truth of this early tradi- 
tion. Moreover, the Gospel of Mark appears to have been 
written before the destruction of Jerusalem. But the apostle 
John survived that event almost thirty years; and this Gospel 
could hardly have been circulated without his sanction: the 
use of it was, however, very early and unquestioned. 

(2) Luke is reported by the early church to have been long 
a companion of Paul, and to have written the Third Gospel 
and the Acts during his life; and therefore, we may surely 
assume, with the benefit of his supervision (cf. 1 Tim. v. 18; 
Luke x. 7). Moreover, both these were, without doubt, in 
circulation twenty years before the death of John, and must 
naturally have been approved by him. 

(3) The Epistle to the Hebrews was probably written by 
the direction and under the eye of Paul (whether by Luke or 
by some one else we cannot tell), and’ was sent to those ad- 
dressed as a letter from that apostle. 

(4) The Epistle of James was probably written by James, 
a brother of Christ, who was pastor of the church at Jerusa- 
lem, and possessed apostolic influence. 

(5) The author of the Epistle of Jude was probably a 
brother of Christ, and an associate of the apostles; and his 
letter was in this case, we can hardly doubt, indorsed by 
them. 

(6) The Second Epistle of Peter was probably written 
by the apostle: if not, it is spurious, —the work of some 
unknown writer, and wholly unworthy of a place in the canon. 
But there is too much evidence, both external and internal, of 


The Bible from God. 7I 


_ its genuineness, to permit us to hesitate in receiving it as a 
part of the sacred record. 

2. That these associates of aposties, namely, Mark, Luke, 
Fames, and Fude, were probably themselves inspired. For (a) 
many associates of the apostles were inspired (Acts ii. 17, 18; 
xi. 27, 28; xxi. 9; I Cor. xi. 4; xiv. 24-34); and, therefore, (0) 
it is extremely probable that these men were thus qualified for 
their werk. Indeed, it seems to us more probable that these 
writers were inspired than that they looked to the apostles for 
an indorsement of their writings. But, loving the truth and 
anxious to have it delivered to the people in its purity, it is 
unreasonable to suppose they would have neglected to submit 
their work to the superior knowledge of apostles, if they were 
not themselves conscious of divine illumination ‘guarding 
them from error. 

It has now been shown that the New Testament Scriptures 

‘were either written or sanctioned by men divinely inspired ; 
it is, therefore, certaim that they deserve our respect and 
confidence as a proper revelation from God. Nay, we may 
speak of them with propriety as the word of God. 

Having reached this conclusion in respect to the New 
Testament Scriptures, we might proceed at once to make use 
of them in proving the divine authority of the Old Testament. 
But it will be better to notice, at this point, certain objections 
which are sometimes urged against the conclusion stated above. 

I. Though the writers of the New Testament knew the 
will of God by the illumination of his Spirit, they may not in 
all cases have taught faithfully what they knew. Fear, 
flattery, or ambition may have led them to modify or withhold 
the truth. Indeed, this appears to have been done by Peter 
at Antioch, to the great grief of Paul (Gal. ii. 11 sq.). 

In reply to this objection, we remark : — 

(z) That the general character of the apostles forbids us to 
suppose that they deliberately taught what they knew to be 
erroneous. If this be not evident from the tone of their 


Dscte Acts R112, 253 Xl. 5, 13;'Xv. 37, 39; Col. iv..10; 1 Tim. iv. 11; 
Philemon, 24; 1 Pet. v. 13, and Acts xvi. 10; xx. 5; xxi. 173 XXVil. 13 xxviii. 16. 


72 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


writings and from what is known of their lives, nothing in 
the past can be evident. 

(4) That it is, on the whole, easy and necessary to 
distinguish between the private conduct and the public 
teaching of inspired men. This distinction is as old as 
Augustine, — perhaps older; and no one should hesitate to 
apply it to the holy apostles, as well as to the ancient 
prophets. Perfection of character has never been supposed 
indispensable in order to correctness of teaching. Remember 
Balaam, Jonah, and even Moses. 

(c) There is no evidence that Peter taught any thing 
inconsistent with the gospel except, in a certain sense, by his 
example. And it is even possible that he hoped to win over 
the brethren from Jerusalem to better views, by going with 
them for a time. His fear of displeasing them may have 
been accompanied by a hope of conciliating and gaining 
them. 

(2) There is some evidence, in the use which Paul makes 
of the occurrence, that Peter admitted the justice of his 
fellow-apostle’s remonstrance, and from that timé onward 
acted in harmony with his own knowledge and conviction of 
duty. 

(ce) There is no evidence or probability that the Holy 
Spirit would have granted further assistance to any apostle 
who, in his teaching, had rejected the light of that Spirit, or 
that he would have suffered the other apostles to recognize 
such an one as their peer. We must, therefore, suppose that 
all apostatized, and yet persisted in claiming what they knew 
they had forfeited; or else that all proved faithful in their 
work, and enjoyed the promised illumination of the Spirit 
therein. The latter is the only reasonable view. 

2. In certain instances the New Testament writers appear 
to have erred in their language through carelessness or 
passion. Thus, it has been said that Luke antedates the 
census or enrollment under Cyrenius (Luke ii. 2; Acts v. 37; 
Josephus Antt. xvi. i. 1); that Stephen exaggerates the 
time of Israel’s bondage in Egypt (Acts vil. 6; Gen. xv. 13; 


The Bible from God. 73 


Ex. xii. 40; Gal. iii. 17), and ascribes an act to Abraham 
which was done by Jacob (Acts vii. 16); and that Paul spoke 
ignorantly and in wrath before the Sanhedrin (Acts xxiii. 5). 

But, (2) Luke was probably correct in his statement about 
the time of the registration which he had in mind.’ (6) 
Stephen probably called the whole period from Abraham’s 
entrance into Canaan until the exodus (in round numbers 
400 years, but more exactly 430 years, Ex. xii. 40) the period 
of servitude in Egypt, from its leading and characteristic 
portion.” (c) In Acts vii. 16, the language of Stephen may 
be explained as elliptical, but intelligible to his hearers, who 
knew traditionally what had not been placed in the sacred 
record; or an error may have crept into the text by transcrip- 
tion. (d) The words of Paul in Acts xxiii. 5: “I wist not, 
brethren, that he was high priest,” may be understood, with 
Calvin, Alexander, Meyer, and others, as indignant irony.* 

3. Paul is thought to admit that some of his teaching was 
not inspired, for example, 1 Cor. vii. 6, 12, 25, 40; 2 Cor. xi. 
17; (cf. Rom. iii. §; vi. 19; Gal. iii. 15.) 

In reply, it must be said, that he makes no such admission. 
For, (a) In the first passage, he merely says that he is giving 
his readers a permission not acommand. (4) In the second, 
he gives instruction on a point that Christ bad not expressly 
noticed. (c¢) In the third, he says he has no command uttered 
by Christ to give them, but rather, and only, his apostolic 
advice. (d) In the fourth, he gives his advice again, adding, 
“and I suppose that I aiso have the Spirit of God.” (e) In 
the fifth, he acknowledges that he has been compelled to 
answer foois according to their folly. 

IV. BotH CHRIST AND HIS INSPIRED APOSTLES INDORSED 
THE OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES AS FROM GoD. 

To establish the truth of this proposition, it must be shown 


1 Fairbairn (P.) “‘ Hermeneutical Manual” et Appendix; Tholuck “ Bib. Sac.” 
[. 443: “ New Englander ” for 1870, Woolsey (T. D.) 

2 Hackett, Alexander, e¢ alii. 

3 See Hackett, Wordsworth, and “Bib. Sac.” for 1879, pp. 516, 517- 

4 See particularly the note of Meyer. 


74 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


that the Old Testament Scriptures existed in the time of 
Christ as a well known collection of sacred writings; for 
some of the books found in the Old Testament are not 
referred to separately, in the New Testament. Hence we 
remark : — 

1. That our present Old Testament Scriptures, the Apocrypha 
excluded, were all written some centuries before Christ. In 
support of this statement, we can do no more than appeal to 
the standard Introductions to the Old Testament; for the 
presentation of this evidence in detail belongs to the biblical 
department of instruction." . 

2. That they were well known at the time of his advent asa 
collection of sacred writings. This might be proved by the 
words of our Saviour and his apostles; but it may also be 
proved by the testimony of uninspired men. In the preface 
of the “Wisdom of Jesus, the Son of Sirach,’’ we have the 
words, “Since so many and great things have been given to 
us by the law and the prophets, and the books which followed 
after them, so that it is necessary to praise Israel for learning 
and wisdom, . . . my grandfather Jesus having applied him- 
self for a long time to the reading of the law and the prophets 
and the other ancestral books, and having secured great skill 
in these, was moved also himself to compose something per- 
taining to learning and wisdom.” A little below, the preface 
speaks once more of “the law and the prophets and the rest 
of the books.” 

Again: Josephus, in his work against Apion, remarks that 
the composition of the Jewish sacred books had not depended ~ 


1 Horne (T. H.) “Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the 
Holy Scriptures,” last ed.; Havernick (H. A. C.) “Handbuch der Historisch- 
kritischen Einleitung in das Alte Testament”; Keil (C. F.) “Manual of His- 
torico-Critical Introduction to the Canonical Scriptures of the O. T.”; Bleek (F.) 
Einleitung in das Alte Testament: translated also; DeWette (W. M. L.) “ Kin- 
leitung in die Biicher des A. T.” translated imperfectly; Stuart (M.) “Crit..and 
Hist. Defence of the Old Testament Canon”; and the articles on “@anon of the 
O. T.” and on the several books of the O. T., in Herzog, Winer, Smith, Fair- 
bairn’s Kitto, Alexander, McClintock and Strong, and other dictionaries of 
the Bible. 


The Bible from God. 75 


upon every one’s caprice, but upon “the prophets, who had 
learned the most exalted and most ancient things according 
to the inspiration of God, and had recorded the events occur- 
ring in their own times wisely as they happened;’”’ and then 
(ch. vill.) proceeds thus: “For there are not among us 
myriads of discordant and conflicting books, but twenty-two 
only, containing a register of the entire time, which are justly 
considered divine; and, of these, five are of Moses. From 
the death of Moses until the reign of Artaxerxes, the king of 
the Persians, who succeeded Xerxes, the prophets subsequent 
to Moses recorded in thirteen books the things which were 
done in their own times; and the remaining four embrace 
hymns to God, and moral suggestions to men. And, from 
Artaxerxes to our own time, some have indeed been written; 
but they have not been thought worthy of like faith with 
those preceding them, because there was no strict succes- 
sion of the prophets.” He adds, in respect to the Sacred 
Scriptures, “Neither has any one ventured to add any 
thing, or change them; and it is innate in all Jews, straight- 
way from their earliest origin, to consider these the doctrines 
of God,—to abide by them, and, if need be, gladly die for 
them.” 

The language of Josephus shows, (a) That the Jews had 
books which they did not consider inspired or sacred. (0) 
That a prophetic origin or approval was esteemed necessary 
to render a book sacred. (c) That they did not tamper with 
their sacred books. (d) That these books were regarded as 
a completed whole. (e) That none of them were written 
after the time of Artaxerxes (or Esther). 

And it may be remarked, that his use and citation of the 
. Old Testament are said to agree with the canon cited by 
him. 

On the other hand, the words of Jesus, the son of Sirach, 
show very clearly that the Old Testament was divided into 
three parts, —the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa. 
This division is recognized by Christ. 

3. That they were recognizcd collectively or severally by 


76 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


Christ and his apostles as the word of God.' In proof of this 
statement, we appeal, (1) To the words of Christ (Matt. xxi. 
42; (cf. Mark xii. 10); Matt. xxii. 29; (cf. Mark xii. 24); Matt. 
xxvi. 54,56; (cf. Mark xiv. 49); Luke iv. 21; xxiv. 46; John 
V.. 39; Vil. 38; x. 35; xiii. 18; xvii. 12; Matt. ven jee 
12; xxii. 36-40; Luke xvi. 17; xxiv. 44; xi. 49). (2) To the 
words of the New Testament writers (Luke xxiv. 27, 32, 
45; John ii. 22; xix. 24, 28, 36, 37; xx. Oo; Actsuiaien 
32, 353 xvii. 2; xviii. 28; Rom. iii. 2; 2° Timi 
From these and similar passages, it is sufficiently evident 
that no one can reasonably accept the New Testament as 
God’s word without accepting the Old Testament as being 
equally so. 

In confirmation of this evidence, we remark, (1) That the 
Old Testament Scriptures have been found trustworthy as 
historical records. Indeed, they are distinguished for the 
impartiality with which they record the faults and sins and 
disasters of the chosen people, and its heroes. A divine 
conscience seems to hold them to the strict line of honest 
history and biography.*? (2) That some of them have been 
proved to be inspired by the fulfilment of prophecy. We 
refer to the predictions respecting Babylon, Nineveh, Jeru- 
salem, the Jewish nation, and the Messiah, with their fulfil- 
ment as described by sacred or profane historians. In the 
first ages of Christianity, great use was made of this argu- 
ment.’ (3) That some of them were authenticated by the 


1 Lechler (D. G. V.) “The Old Testament in the Discourses of Jesus,” Chr. 
Rey. vol. XXIV. pp. 368-390, 543-574; Fairbairn (P.) “ Hermeneutical Manual 
of the N. T.” p. 390 sq.; Davidson (S.) “‘ Hermeneutics,” ‘‘ Quotations from the 
Old Test. in the N. T.” 

2 Rawlinson (G.) “ Historical Evidences of Christianity.” 


3 See Gifford (E. H.) “ Voices of the Prophets”; Smith (R. P.) “ Prophecy 


a Preparation for Christ,” and “The Messianic Interpretation of the Prophecies of 
Isaiah”; Keith (A.) “On the Fulfilment of Prophecy”; Fairbairn (P.) “ Prophecy. 
its Distinctive Nature, its Special Function, and Proper Interpretation”; Hof- 
mann (J. C. K.) “Weissagung und Erfiillung”; Knobel (A.) “ Der Prophet- 
ismus der Hebrzer”; Tholuck (A.) “Die Propheten und ihre Weissagungen ” ; 
Davison (S.) “Discourses on Prophecy”; Patton (Wm.) “The Judgment of 
Jerusalem.” 


The Bible from God. 77 


working of miracles. We refer, of course, to such miracles 
as were wrought at the word of Moses, Joshua, Elijah, Elisha, 
and others. The argument from miracles is less trustworthy 
and convincing when founded on those recorded in the Old 
Testament than it is when founded on those attested by the 
apostles; but the argument from the fulfilment of prophecy 
is far more extensive and important as related to the Old 
Testament than it is as related to the New. (4) That the 
doctrines of the Old Testament are such as must be referred 
to a divine source. In respect to God and his relation to 
man, as well as to all things visible and invisible, their teach- 
ing is superhuman." 

The conclusion which has now been reached is this, — 
that the sacred writers were moved and assisted by the Holy 
Spirit to put on record all which the Bible, apart from errors in 
the text, now contains. As to the Old Testament, this is 
taught by the Saviour and his apostles; and, as to the New 
Testament, it is established by evidence previously given. 

But it is important for us to consider more carefully the 
nature and extent of inspiration in the sacred writers.” 

And, in doing this, we assert, — 


1 See also, “The Religion of the Christ,” by Stanley Leathes, an excellent 
volume of the Bampton Lectures. 

* See Dick (J.) “ An Essay on the Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures,” &c.; 
Parry (W.) “An Inquiry into the Nature and Extent of the Inspiration of the 
Apostles,” &c.; Haldane (R.) “The Books of the Old and New Testaments proved 
to be Canonical, and their Verbal Inspiration Maintained and Established;” 
Carson (A.) “The Theories of Inspiration of the Rev. Daniel Wilson, Rev. Dr. 
Pye Smith, and the Rev. Dr. Dick proved to be Erroneous;” Gaussen (I. R. L.) 
“Theopneusty; or, the Plenary Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures;” Banner- 
man (J.) “Inspiration: The Infallible Truth and Divine Authority of the Holy 
Scriptures ;” Garbett (E.) “God’s Word Written; The Doctrine of the Inspi- 
ration of the Holy Scripture Explained and Defended;” Lee (W.) “The 
Inspiration of Holy Scripture; its Nature and Proof;” Woods (L-) “ Inspiration 
of the Scriptures,” Works Vol. I. Lecs. IX. to XIV. incl.; Row (C. A.) “The 
Nature and Extent of Divine Inspiration, as stated by the writers, and deduced 
from the Facts of the N. T.;” Warington (G.) “The Inspiration of Scripture; 
Its Limits and Effects;” Lewis (T.) “The Divine Human in the Scriptures;” 
Curtis (T. F.) “ The Human Element in the Inspiration of the Sacred Scriptures ;” 
Macnaught (J.) “ The Doctrine of Inspiration,” &c.; Rothe (R.) “ Zar Dogmatik ; * 


78 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


V. THAT THE INSPIRATION OF THE APOSTLES AND PROPHETS 
WAS DIFFERENT IN KIND FROM THAT OF ORDINARY CHRISTIANS. 

This is denied by many at the present time. They assert 
that inspiration has always beerf proportioned to the spiritual 
attainments of the subject, and hence that many good men 
at the present time have even a higher degree of inspiration 
from God than the ancient prophets or apostles. In opposi- 
tion to this modern view, and in support of our proposition, 
we appeal, — 

1. Zo the impression which the Scriptures as a whole make 
on the reader's mind. ‘This is certainly unique, and generally 
favorable to the claims of the writers ; and, when it is so, they 
are admitted to have had an inspiration altogether peculiar. 
If those claims are denied, the writers are supposed to have 
been deceivers or deceived. 

2. To the common belief of Christians in every age since the 
first. The adherents of the Papacy claim for the Pope, not 
an original inspiration for the communication of new truth, 
but simply a jwdicial inspiration, enabling him to recognize 
and indorse old truth,—the teachings of Christ and his 
apostles. 

3. To the manifest superiority of the Sacred Scriptures to 
other religious writings of the same period. From Peter to 
Clement, from Paul to Ignatius, from John to Polycarp, from 
James to the Shepherd of Hermas, the descent is steep and 
long. 

4. To the equality, at least, of the Sacred Scriptures to 
Christian writings in any age. This seems to us very remark- 
able. Itis not so with other branches of knowledge. Ancient 
works on moral science and political economy, not to speak 
of natural science, are now worthless, except for history. 


Philippi (F. A.) “Xirchliche Glaubenslehre: Erstes Kapitel;” Turretin (F.) 
“De Scriptura,” Vol. I. Loc. II. Quezstiones XVI., XVII.; Gerhard (J.) “ Loci 
Theoiogici, Tom. I. Loc. I. De Scriptura Sacra;” Oosterzee (J. J. van) “ Chris- 
tian Dogmatics,” I. p. 194 sq.; Herzog, R. E. s. v. “Inspiration;” Jalaguyer 
(P.) “L’Inspiration du N. T.”; Guizot (F. P. G.) “Meditations,” I.; Schmidt 
(W.) “ Zur Inspirationsfrage ” ; Dietzsch (A.) “Die Lehre von der Inspiration 
der Schrift,” in Stu. u. Kr. 1869 S. 428 sq. 


The Bible from God. 79 


5. To the knowledge of future events possessed by many, uf 
not all, the writers. In this it is perfectly plain that prophets 
and apostles differed from ordinary Christians. Indeed, the 
most eminent men of God, since the apostolic age, have been 
destitute of this knowledge, not being able even to understand 
some of the biblical prophecies which are to be fulfilled here- 
after. 

6. To the miracles which attested the authority of apostles 
and prophets as teachers of truth. This peculiar attestation 
points to something peculiar in their inspiration. Christ 
appealed to it, Paul relied upon it; and there is no evidence 
more suitable to convince the mind of a proper revelation 
from God. 

But we are prepared to go yet further, and assert, — 

VI. THat THE INSPIRATION OF THE APOSTLES AND 
PROPHETS MADE THEM INFALLIBLE TEACHERS OF TRUTH. 

And, by “infallible teachers,’ we mean those who set forth 
by voice or pen the will of God in the best manner practi- 
cable, —whose teaching the reason of man has no right to 
modify or reject, but only to ascertain and obey. Rightly 
interpreted, their teaching is correct so far as it goes. Mr. 
Campbell very pertinently and forcibly remarks, “It is one 
thing to say that, because of human limits, what God can 
reveal of himself to man is to be held to be less than what 
God is; and it is quite another thing to say, that what God 
sees it good to reveal of himself to man he cannot truly and 
effectually reveal through man, —that the medium must more 
or less color and distort the light passing through it. This, 
consistently held, makes a revelation to man and a revelation 
through man impossible. If man cannot transmit light with- 
out distorting it, then neither can he receive light without 
misconceiving it.” 

In support of this proposition, we appeal, — + 

1. Zo their marvellous accuracy of statement in matters which 
can be tested. This is most evident in respect to the New 
Testament. Of the hundreds of particulars referred to in 


1 Campbeil (J. McLeod) “ Thoughts on Revelation,” a suggestive work. 


80 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


that volume, not one can be proved an error. This is a 
very bold statement, no doubt; and of course it refers to the 
writings as they came from the hands of inspired men, and 
not as we have them now in the best editions of the New 
Testament. 

2. To the remarkable originality and consistency of the 
Scripturcs in their teaching. For example, (1) In respect to 
the character of God — his personality, supremacy, righteous- 
ness, and benevolence; (2) In respect to the Moral Law; 
(3) In respect to the sinfulness of man; (4) In respect to 
the way of human salvation. 

3. To the divine authority which the apostles and prophets 
claimed for their teaching. Nothing is more certain than 
that they professed to speak for God. The prophets of the 
Old Testament, and the apostles of the New, declared their 
word to be final,—a message from the living God, which all 
should hear and obey. 

4. To the supernatural evidence which proved thetr authority 
to speak for God. This evidence consisted in the working of 
miracles and the fulfilment of predictions uttered by them 
(Deut. xviii. 20-22; xiii. I-3). 

Yet it must be conceded that the evidence for infallible 
correctness in the expression of religious truth is much 
stronger than the evidence for such correctness in references 
to secular affairs. For not only are a vast majority of the 
passages in which adivine authority ts expressly claimed such 
as reveal or enforce religious truth, but the admitted object 
of divine communications from first to last is religious. 
Beyond question, then, the zeaching of the Bible is almost 
wholly religious. All other instruction is ancillary to this. 

Yet it is difficult to see how inaccurate representations of 
history can give just views of divine providence or of human 
character. And, therefore, upon examination, it will be 
almost impracticable to draw a line between secular and 
religious truth in the Bible. Indeed, all events that have 
found a place in the sacred record appear to have found it by 
virtue of their relation to the moral government of God. 


4 


The Bible from God. 81 


Looking, then, at the claims of the sacred writers, and at 
the object for which they were inspired, the argument for 
their infallibility as teachers of religion is far stronger than 
that for infallibility in speaking of ordinary affairs; but look- 
ing at the way in which they teach,—that is, by frequent 
reference to ordinary affairs, —it is hard to see how mistakes 
in the latter will not vitiate the former. We are therefore. 
led to zzfer the correctness of their references to secular 
matters from their divine authority in teaching religious 
truth, 

As to the psychology, or human side, of inspiration, three 
remarks are submitted: (2) The words which they were to 
employ appear to have been sometimes given to the sacred 
writers by inspiration. Prophets and seers of visions were 
addressed through their spiritual senses. (4) The mental 
powers of the sacred writers were raised and cleared and 
guided, but not suspended, by inspiration. ‘The action of 
their bodily senses may have been arrested in cases of 
ecstasy, but not the action of their mental and moral powers. 
(c) The apostles as well as the prophets received the truth 
by inspiration gradually, and as they needed it for their work, 
and not all at once. 

These are the elements of our belief on the subject; and it 
will be seen that they point towards what is called the theory 
of dynamical inspiration. But no one of the prophets or 
sacred writers has attempted to describe the relation of his 
spirit to the Spirit of God in times of inspiration. Perhaps 
he could not. The words which Peter Bayne puts into the 
mouth of Elijah may be true: — 

“ Ask not how I know; 
No prophet knoweth how he knoweth God, 
Or how he knows that God’s breath moveth him. 
I know not how I live, yet cannot doubt 
That here Iam. The light that showeth God 


Burns up both doubt and proof, as the full sun 
Quencheth both moon and stars in blaze of day.” 


1 Days of Jezebel,” pp. 189, 190. Késter (A.) “ Wie verhalt sich in der heil. 
Schrift die Offenbarung Gottes zu der freien Geistesthatigkeit der heiligen 
Schriftsteller?” St. u. Kr. 1852, 875 ff. 


82 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


The sources of knowledge open to the minds of inspired 
men may be specified as follows : — 

1. Revelation. To this may be referred all their knowledge 
of future events, and much of the doctrinal truth which they 
taught. 

2. Observation. To this may be traced the larger part of 
the history cuntained in the Old Testament and in the New; 
and the value of this part. of the Bible depends, in a great 
measure, on the fact that the minds of inspired men were in 
a normal state. 

3. Experience. To this may be traced much of the Psalms, 
as well:as the Lamentations and Ecclesiastes. That the 
feelings which the sacred writers have expressed, for example, 
in the Psalms, were right in the circumstances may be 
inferred : — 

(a) From the general character of the Psalms. The views 
which they express of God, of man, of sin, of righteousness, 
are manifestly of divine origin; and the religious emotions 
which they utter have pale forth a response from the best 
Christians in every age.’ 

(6) From the quotations of the Psalms in the New Ti yes a 
They are quoted very often, and in no case with any hint of 
their being marred by human imperfection. 

(c) From the want of any criteria by which the right and 
wrong sentiments supposed by some to be in them can be dis- 
criminated. For the psalms are separate productions, every 
one complete in itself, and no one laying down rules by 
which others are to be judged. In every case the materials 
for correct interpretation are to be sought in the psalm 
itself.? , 

4. Study. This was evidently a source of knowledge to 
some of the sacred writers. From the preface to Luke’s 
Gospel, we learn that he obtained his accurate knowledge of 
our Saviour’s history by careful investigation. He may have 
heen inspired to collate and select the testimony; but he un- 


1 Chambers (T. W.) “The Psalter; a Witness to the Divine Origin of the 
Bible.” 2 Edwards (B. B.) “Imprecations in the Scriptures,” Bib. Sac. I. pp. 
97-110: Owen (J. J.) “Imprecatory Psalms,” Bib. Sac. XIII. pp. 551-563; Park 
(E. A.) “Imprecatory Psalms,” Bib. Sac. XIX. pp. 165-210. 


The Bible from God. 83 


questionably obtained his information from others and by 
faithful inquiry. The same may be said of other sacred 
_ writers. 

In view of what has now been stated, we claim that our 
theory of inspiration accounts for all the phenomena of the 
Bible better than any other, —for its varieties of style as well 
as numerous writers; for its verbal discrepancies, as well as 
essential harmony; for the personal feelings and tastes which 
are revealed by its writers; and for a thousand traces of high 
yet free spiritual action on their part. How any one can 
read the New Testament, the Book of Revelation excepted, 
and doubt whether its writers speak with conscious freedom, 
and also with conscious authority, passes our comprehension. 
The letters of Paul are intensely xatural and equally saper- 
natural: the Word was made flesh without losing its heavenly 
truth and power. 

Before leaving the present topic, we must refer to.a few 
objections to our view. 

The Bible, it is said, cannot be the infallible word of 
God: — 

I. Because a belief in its infallibility leads to bibliolatry. 
This is a mistake. The student of nature believes her 
testimony to be infallible, yet he is not led by this belief to 
pay religious homage to nature. And the same is true of 
those who accept the teaching of the Bible as infallible; they 
recognize the duty of worshipping God, and him only. 

Il. Because this belief retards the progress of science. Men, 
it is said, are rendered by it suspicious of the discoveries of 
science, and slow to give it their support. This is also a 
mistake. Believers in the truth of the Scriptures believe in 
the’truth of nature also, and encourage the highest schools of 
learning. They may be slow to receive scientific views which 
appear to be inconsistent with what they suppose the Bible . 
teaches ; but they have no fear of true science, no desire to 
prevent men from studying the works of God in nature. 

Ill. Because infallibility in the original Scriptures requires 


1 Birks (T. R.) “The Bible and Modern Thought.” 


84 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


Sor tts complement infallibility in all copies, translations, and, 
some would say, interpretations of them. For otherwise, we 
are told, the benefit of infallibility is lost to all but the 
primitive readers. But this, again, is a mistake; for the 
errors from transcription, translation, &c., are such as can 
be detected, or at least estimated, and reduced to a mni- 
mum; while errors in the original revelation could not be 
measured. 

IV. Because it has much obscure language. The object of 
a supernatural revelation is to make known important truth: 
hence words will be used, not to hide, but to express thought; 
and we have a right to expect the clearest language possible. 

This objection is plausible, but unsound; for the obscure 
language of Scripture may be due (1) To a transcendent 
element in the objects or events referred to; (2) To its truth 
to nature and history; (3) To its adaptation to the first 
recipients; (4) To its adaptation to special ends, distinct 
from that of teaching; (5) Adaptation to man at every stage 
of human history; (6) Adaptation to man as under proba- 
tion. 

V. Because it sometimes uses*unsound arguments. It is 
admitted by some that the leading ideas of Christianity were 
supernaturally revealed to the sacred writers; but the sub- 
ordinate ideas, and the arguments used, are said to be the 
fruit of their unaided reason, and so not the word of God. 
This, however, is a mistake. Neither Christ, nor any one of 
his apostles, can be shown to have argued sophistically. 
Sometimes, indeed, an argument may not be stated in full; 
for example, Matt. xxii. 23, sq. ; but it is never unsound. — See 
also Gal. iii. 16. 

VI. Because it admits to some extent false interpretation. 
Many passages of the Old Testament, it is said, are incor- 
rectly interpreted by writers of the New Testament: hence 
their words are not infallible. But it is to be observed 
(1) That the language of the Scriptures is confessedly ob- 
scure in many places; (2) That some of these are the very 
passages said to be misinterpreted in the New Testament; 


The Bible from God. 8s 


and (3) That the New Testament writers believed in the 
divinity of the Old Testament, and interpreted it accordingly. 

VII. Because tt teaches scientific errors. In reply to this 
charge, it may be remarked, that all references to matters of 
science in the Bible are (1) Merely incidental and auxiliary ; 
(2) Clothed in popular language; and, (3) Confirmed by 
consciousness, so far as they relate to the mind. Remember- 
ing these facts, we say that the Bible has not been shown to 
contain scientific errors. — Astronomy, geology, ethnology. 

VIII. Because it teaches historical errors. On the supposed 
historical errors of the Bible, we remark, (1) They relate, for 
the most part, to matters of chronology, genealogy, numbers,? 
&c. (2) Transcribers are specially liable to mistakes in 
copying numbers, names, &c. (3) Different names for the 
same person, and different termini for the same period, are 
quite frequent. (4) Round numbers are often employed for 
specific. Making proper allowance for these facts, we deny 
that historical errors are found in the Bible. 

IX. Because it contains contradictory statements. On this 
we remark, (1) That statements may be contradictory in 
words, but not in sense. #“ Answer not a fool,’ &c. (2) 
They may seem to be contradictory in sense when they are 
not: for example, the unity of God and the Trinity; Paul 
and James on justification. (3) They may be contradictory 
in sense, but not in moral bearing; for example, rest on’ the 
Sabbath, yet extra work for priests. Muses and Christ on 
divorce. Bearing in mind these facts, it will be impossible 
for us to find in the Bible any contradictions which mar its 
excellence.® 


Barrows (E. P.) “The Quotations of the N. T. in their relation to the ques- 
tion of Inspiration,” Bib. Sac. xxx. pp. 305-322; Fairbairn (P.) “ Hermeneu- 
tical Manual,” Part Third; Scott (J.) ‘ Principles of N. T. Quotation established 
and applied to Bible Science”; Reinke (L.) “Zur Erklarung des A. T.”’ Bd. 
II. und Iv. 

2 Bib. Sac. XXX. p. 323. sq., Gardner (F.) “The Chronological value of the 
Genealogy in Gen. V.”; Reinke (L.) “Zur Erklarung des Alten Testaments ” 
Bd. I. 

3 Haley (J. W.) “An Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible.” 


86 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


X. Because it contains false prophecy. There is none in 
the Bible uttered by those who are recognized as true 
prophets. But it is to be noted, (1) That, for obvious 
reasons, prophecy is more obscure than almost any other 
kind of writing; and (2) That it is sometimes expressly and 
sometimes tacitly conditional. 

XI. Because it teaches bad theology. God, it is said, is 
represented in the Scriptures as changeful, jealous, revenge- 
ful, and, in a word, human. To this we reply, (1) It is due 
in part to the imperfection of human language and the limits 
of human thought. (2) It is also due in part to the end 
sought by the Bible, determining its style. (3) It is so 
modified by other representations, as to give a fair mind the 
right impression of God. 

XII. Because it teaches bad morality. Deception, treachery, 
revenge, cruelty, lust, are said to be sanctioned by the 
approved or unreproved conduct of good men. This charge 
rests on two mistakes: (1) A mistake as to the real character 
of certain acts; (2) A mistake as to the indorsement of 
other acts by the Bible.’ 

In establishing the divine autherity and inspiration of the 
Scriptures, we have established the truth of the Christian 
religion. Says Bishop Butler, “In the evidence of Christianity 
there seem to be several things of great weight, not reducible 
to the head, either of miracles, or the completion of prophecy, 
in the common acceptation of the words. But these two 
eare its fundamental proofs.... Thus the evidence of 
Christianity will be a long series of things, reaching, as it 
seems, from the beginning of the world to the present time; 
of great variety and compass, taking in both the direct and 
the collateral proofs, and making up, all of them together, one 
argument.’ And Davison on Prophecy, remarks: “If con- 
trivance or accident could have given to Christianity any of 
its apparent testimonies, its miracles, its prophecies, its 


1 Hessey (J. A.) “Moral Difficulties of the Bible,” First and Second Series; 
Reinke (L.) “ Zur Erklarung des A. T.” Bd. I. 


The Bible from God. 87 


morals, its propagation, or its founder, there could be no 
room to believe, or even imagine, that a// these appearances 
of great credibility, could be wsted together, by any such 
means. If successful craft could have contrived its public 
miracles, or the pretence of them, it requires another reach 
of craft to adapt its prophecies to the same object. Further, 
it requires not only a different, but a totally opposite art to 
conceive and promulgate its admirable morals. Again, its 
propagation, in defiance of the powers and terrors of the 
world, implied still other qualities of action. Lastly, the 
model of the life of its founder is a work of such originality 
and wisdom, as could be the offspring only of consummate 
powers of invention, or rather never could have been devised, 
but must have come from real life. The hypothesis sinks 
under its incredibility. ach of these suppositions of con- 
trivance being arbitrary and unsupported, the climax of them 
is an extravagance.” 


88 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


PART THIRD. 
THE PERFECTION OF GOD, 


Having considered some of the evidence which sustains 
our belief in the existence of a Supreme Being who is called 
God, and some of the evidence which justifies our confidence 
in the Bible as a revelation made by him, we are now to look 
at the evidence of his perfection, which is offered to us by 
the Bible and by nature — including the soul of man. 

This should be done with profound reverence, —for the 
Maker of the universe is a being greater and better than we 
can ever hope to comprehend, — but, at the same time, with 
holy freedom, because he has made us in his own image, 
capable of knowing him in part.’ 

Nor do we limit God by assigning to him certain dis- 
tinguishable attributes, — for example, knowledge, goodness, 
power ; for infinite power may be exercised for the worthiest 
object, as apprehended by perfect intelligence.? 


MODES OF GOD'S EXISTENCE. 


I. Unity. God exists as a single essence or substance. 
In this respect he is one; and there is no second being of the 


1 Calderwood (H.) “The Philosophy of the Infinite”; Porter (N.) “The 
Human Intellect,” Pt. iii. c. 8. and Pt. iv. passim; McCosh (J.) “The Intuitions 
of the Human Mind”; Miiller (J.) “The True Idea of God,” Book iii. c. 4. in 
“The Christian Doctrine of Sin”; Nitzsch (C. I.) Article “Gott,” sec. iii, 
“ Eigenschaften,” in Herzog, “Real-Encyklopadie”; Thomasius (G.) “Christi 
Pcrson und Werk,” Bd. i. secs. 7-17; Martensen (H.) “ Dogmatics ” sec. 46. sq.; 
Woods (L.) “ Lectures,” &c., vol. 1. lec. xvi.; Oosterzee (J. J. van) “Christian 
Dogmatics,” First Division, vol. 1. p. 234 sq.; Charnock (S.) “On the Divine 
Attributes.” 

2 Against Bruch (J. F.) “Die Lehre von den géttlichen Eigenschaften”; 
Mansel (H L.) “The Limits of Religious Thought”; Spencer (H.) “ Yirst Prin- 
ciples of a New Philosophy”; Schleiermacher (F.) ‘‘ Der Christliche Gaube.” 


The Perfection of God. 89 


same nature. Hence, Dualism, Tritheism, Polytheism, and 
Pantheism are all inconsistent with Theism. The unity of 
God is established by the testimony of Scripture (Deut. vi. 4; 
Bream, Vil. 22; Ps, Ixxxvi, 10; Isa, xiii. 10;*Matt. xix: 17; 
mcor, vill, 6; Gal. ti, 20; 1 Tim, i, §;) and by that of 
human reason, — one God, or no God. 

Il. /udependence. This is affirmed of God in respect 
(1) To his exéstence, which is underived and absolute. He is 
the Exister; he has life in himself (Ex. iii. 14; John v. 26). 
(2) To his knowledge (Heb. iv. 13, and passages under Om- 
niscience, infra). (3) To his actzon (Gen. i. 1; Acts xvii. 
24). (4) To his happiness (Eph. i. 11; 1 Tim. vi. 15, 16). 

The independence of God is also included in the perfection 
of his being, which may be inferred from the constitution of 
the humar soul. 

Ill. Lammutability In his being, God remains what he is. 
The idea of his nature is always fully realized, without change 
or development (J. Miiller), He is forever the same in 
essence, in knowledge, in character, in purpose, in blessed- 
mess (Mal. ii, 6; James i, 17; Isa. xl. 28; Ps. cii. 28; Heb. 1. 
12; xiii. 6). The obvious meaning of these passages must 
not be denied on account of other expressions which speak 
of change in God; for the latter are adaptations of thought 
to our weakness. 

‘This view is sustained by just inference from the perfection 
of God — “ He cannot change for the better, because he is 
best; nor for the worse, because he would thereby cease to 
be perfect.” 

Some have supposed that God is mutable in happiness and 
in action. But, as to the former, it may be said that om- 
niscience precludes fluctuations of feeling. As to the latter, 
it may be said, that the mode of God’s action is above the 
grasp of our understanding. It may be without succession, 
in him. 

-1 Dorner (J. A.) “Ueber die richtige Fassung des dogmatischen Begriffs, 


ler Unabveranderlichkeit Gottes,” Jahrbiicher fiir Deutsche Theologic, Bde. I., 
Il, III. 


ete) Manual of Systematic Theology. 


IV. Eternity. By this is meant existence without begin- 
ning or end.— (See Gen. xxi. 33; Deut. xxxii. 40; Ps. xc. 
2; Isa. xli. 4; 1 Tim. i. 17; 2 Peteriil. 8; Rewiageeeee 
far all theists, are agreed. 

But many also embrace the idea of timeless being in the 
word eternity as affirmed of God. And this appears to be 
suggested (1) by such passages as John iii.'13; viii. 58; 
James i. 17; (2) by the difficulty of seeing how temporal 
succession could be experienced by a self-existent being; 
and (3).by the imperfections or limitations which seem in- 
separable from existence in time. 

On the other hand, ‘it must be admitted that the Scrip- 
tures generally speak of God as if his life were divisible into 
periods, —for example, the past and the future, —and that 
the faculties of the human mind are absolutely unable to 
conceive of real existence independent of time. If God is a 
perfect being, however, he cannot grow wiser by growing 
older. Can he grow older without growing wiser? 

V. Omnipresence. There is no point in the universe where. 
God is not (1 Kings viii. 27; 2 Chron. vi. 18; Isa. xliii. 2; 
Ixvi. 1; Jer. xxiii: 23; Amos ix. 2; Ps. cxxxix) G=iguueueee 
xvii. 27, 28; Matt. xxviii. 20). In many places of Scripture 
God is represented as filling immensity; but in other places 
he is represented as simply present everywhere. The omni- 
presence of God is best understood in the light of his spirit- 
uality, to which we now pass. 

VI. Spirituality. (1) Positively: God is a real being, and 
one that acts as well as exists. He is therefore something 
more than a condition of being, like space or time, and more 
than simple action—actzo purissima; he is an agent, an 
actor, a fous actionis. Moreover, he is a living being; for 
spirit is always in a certain sense life (John vi. 63; Gen. i. 2; 
Luke viii. 55; 1 Cor. xv. 45; 2 Cor. 11. 6; Revgaeee 
(2) Negatively: God is an immaterial being (Ps. cxxxix. 7; 
John iv. 24; Ex. xx. 4; Isa. xl. 25; Rom. i. 20; Colima 
1 Tim.i. 17). The language of Ps. cxxxix. 7, and of John iv. 
24, appears to account for the omnipresence of God, by the. 


The Perfection of God. Ol 


fact of his spirituality. And this is reasonable; because 
matter by its very properties presupposes the existence of 
space as a condition of its own existence; while spirit does 
not. There seems to be no evidence that spirit fills any part 
of space, or that the infinite Spirit is in any way dependent 
on space. 

VII. Personality, God is a personal being, one who 
knows, feels, and wills. This is proved (1) By the direct 
testimony of Scripture. Every, attribute and action of a 
personal being is ascribed to him. (2) By the indirect testi- 
mony of Scripture; which is to this effect, that man was 
made in the image of God, and man was personal the first 
day of his life. Besides, personal life is the highest life. 

VIII. Zrinzty. God is a tri-personal being; for the Scrip- 
tures reveal (1) The deity of the Father, of the Son, and 
ef the Holy Spirit, respectively (John i. 1; Acts v. 3, 4). 
(2) Their mutual knowledge and love (Matt. xi. 27; 1 Cor. ii. 
Tome eate die 175) John ii. 35; iv. 34; v.30; Rom. viii. 27). 
(3) Their distinct, yet relative offices (1 Cor. xii. 4-6; Eph. ii. 
18—20). “Remarks. (a) A distinction is to be made between 
what is above and what is agazvst human reason. (0) The 
words “ person”’ and “ personal”’ are modified by the essential 
unity of the Godhead, and only signify that the distinction 
is of a personal nature. (c) There is no manifest contradiction 
between an assertion that God is one in essence and an 
assertion that the Godhead is tri-personal. (@) The doctrine 
of the tri-personality of God assists us to comprehend in some 
measure his self-sufficiency and his love.’ 

“God from eternity is love. But if love is communion, if 
its nature is self-surrender, he cannot exist without having an 
object to which he gives himself. If he were self-satisfied, 
self would rule in his nature; and he would be the principle 
of all egoism. He needs another self to whom he may give 
himself. But what self could satisfy him,—could be one 


1 Weisse (C. H.) “Zur Vertheidigung des Begriffes der immanenten Wesens- 
trinitat,” in St. u. Kr. 1841, 345 ff.; Koster (F.) ‘“‘Nachweis der Spuren einer 
Trinitatslehre vor Christo,” in St. u. Kr. 1846, 436 ff. 


92 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


whom he could make a sharer of all his glory, and in whom 
his life could find its all? To be satisfied, love longs for an 
equal. As God has not his equal, he can, therefore, in an 
original and perfect way love only himself; but, himself, 
not in his own, but in another self, —in a self which is like 
himself, and in concrete nature one with himself. This is the 
Son. But the Son, because spirit and equal with the Father, 
is, like the Father, love. Whom does the Son love? Whom, 
but the Father? The Father loves the Son, the Son the 
Father. Their love is mutual. 

"But it is‘a law that true mutual love unites in a third. 
One would be bound up in another, and lose itself in him, if 
in self-surrender it found its allin him. Both remain free in 
their perfect self-surrender, if a third, equally dear to both, 
comes in. The bond of friendship is consecrated, if the two 
friends seek a common end. And, the higher this end, the 
nobler and firmer the bond. However inward the mutual 
love of husband and wife, it tends to pass beyond them to a 
third, and, indeed, to a third like themselves, — personal, on 
which their common love may rest. First in the child, the 
peculiar family blessing, does the marriage life become com- 
plete. And the same law rules in divine love. The mutual 
love of the Father and the Son only becomes perfect self- 
communication in a third. And, since it is the highest love, 
it demands the highest object, one that is no less than 
divine. Can it be the common, divine nature, in which 
their love rejoices? Love is only satisfied perfectly in an ego. 
And so the love of God is not without a third ego in the com- 
mon concrete nature, —is not without the Holy Spirit,’’? 


ATTRIBUTES OF GOD.” 


In considering the attributes of God, it will be convenient 
to follow the ordinary analysis of man’s spiritual powers — 
intellect, conscience, sensibility, and will. 


1 Slightly condensed from Schéberlein (L.) “Die Grundlehren des Heisl 
entwickelt aus dem Princip der Liebe,” s. 22 sq. 

2 Jackson (T.) “A Treatise on the Divine Essence and attributes ;” Maccul- 
loch (J.) “ Proofs and Illustrations of the Attributes of God.” 


The Perfection of God. 93 


I. Omniscience. God knows all objects and events that 
ever have been or ever will be, either actual or possible. 
His understanding is infinite. In proof of this statement, 
our appeal may be made (1) To the testimony of Scripture 
Oyere Kings vill. 39; Ps, cxxxix, 2, 11, 12; Jer: xvi. 173 
Miike xvi. 15; Rom. viii. 27; Heb, iv. 13. (6). Isa. xlit,- 9; 
foci. 1S Sq.) Jer. 1.5 ;°Ps!-exxxix. 16; ¥-Sam. xxiii, ro—14. 
(2) To the testimony of reason. For omniscience is presup- 
posed by the perfection, and assured by the eternity and 
omnipresence of a personal being. 

It may also be remarked, (2) That the knowledge of God 
is intuitive, independent, complete, and timeless; and, (6) 
That it is consistent (1) with a real though derived energy 
in physical causes; (2) with a real though limited freedom in 
voluntary causes; and (3) with purpose and election on the 
part of God. Cicero denied the second position thus: “If 
all future events are foreknown, they will occur as they are 
foreknown ; and, if they will occur in this order, the order of 
events is certain to the foreknowing God; and, if the order 
of events is certain, the order of causes is certain ; for nothing 
can take place which is not preceded by some efficient cause. 
But, if the order of the causes of all events is certain, all 
events come to pass by fate. If this be so, there is nothing 
in our power, and there is no choice of will.” — (“De Fato et 
Divinatione,” ii. 5-7). 

And to his argument, Augustine thus replies: “It does not 
follow, that, if the order of all causes is certain to God, 
nothing depends on the choice of our will; for our volitions 
themselves are in the order of causes, which is certain to God, 
and foreknown by him, inasmuch as human volitions are the 
causes of human deeds. Hence, whoever knows all the 
causes of events cannot be ignorant of our volitions, as being 
also among those causes. So, then, we are by no means 
compelled, either, retaining the foreknowledge of God, to 
remove choice of will, or, retaining choice of will, to deny 
God’s foreknowledge of future events; but we embrace 
both, — one, that we may believe well; the other, that we may 


94 Manual of Systematic Theology, 


live well.” — (“De Civ. Dei,” v. 9, 10.) This reply may not 
be wholly satisfactory ; yet it probably states the truth with 
sufficient accuracy. 

II. Righteousness. God’s moral nature or conscience is 
perfectly right, both in tendency and action, and is the 
source of moral law to all created moral beings. Some 
writers prefer to call it holiness; and the only objection to 
this is the circumstance that the term holiness appears to be 
used in certain passages of Scripture to denote the sum 
total of moral perfections in God, and is therefore equivalent 
to righteousness and benevolence. 

In proof of God's righteousness, we appeal (1) To the Word 
of God, (2) Ps. xi. 7; xv.-1; xxxili. 5; xlv. 8; Deven 
Isa. vi. 3. (8) Deut. xxxil. 4; Ps. xcvii. 2; exlveengeeeene 
ii. 13; vii. 12, (2) To reason; for this attribute is compre- 
hended in our idea of perfection. (3) To conscience; for 
we are often reminded by this inward monitor that God is 
displeased with sin. (4) To our religious instinct; which 
requires righteousness in the object of worship. 

It may also be remarked, (2) That the justice of God 
is his righteousness, as expressed in moral government. 
(6) That righteousness cannot be sacrificed to benevolence. 
(c) That, from different points of view, the righteousness and 
benevolence of God may in all cases seek the same things, 
and, thus acting, neither of them be any check upon the other. 
(d) That the words, anger, fury, vengeance, &c., when ap- 
plied to God, denote no effervescent. passion, but an eternal 
and unchangeable hatred of moral evil. (e) That such expres- 
sions do not exaggerate God’s hostility to sin—(Lac. De Ira V. 
9). And (f) That temporal calamities do not generally prove 
that those who suffer them are specially guilty in the sight 
of God (Job i.; Luke xiii. 2-5; John ix. 1-3; Heb. xii. 6.) 

III. Benevolence. By this, we mean that God desires the 
welfare of his creatures, with a desire most powerful and 
most pure. In proof of this may be alleged (1) The testi- 
mony of Scripture (Ps. lvii. 11; cxlv. 9; cili. 11-13; Cxxxvi. 
1—26; Isa. xlix. 14-16; Matt. v. 45; vii. 11; Luke xi 7; 
John iii. 16; 1 John iv.-8, 18; 1 Tim. ii. 4; 2 Cor, xe 


The Perfection of God. 95 


Ezek. xviil. 23; Xxxili. 11). (2) The testimony of reason. 
The moral perfection of God, and the predominence of hap- 
piness over misery in the animal world, may be insisted upon 
in this connection. 

It may now be remarked, (2) That the grace of God is his 
benevolence as exercised towards the guilty or the undeserv- 
ing. (4) That the mercy of God is his benevolence, as ex- 
ercised towards those who are miserable, as well as guilty. 
(c) That the patience of God is his benevolence, as exercised 
in forbearing to punish the guilty without delay. (d) That 
the wisdom of God is his omniscience, exercised with right- 
eousness and benevolence in securing the best ends by the 
best means. 

IV. Omnifotence. God can effect whatever power can 
effect, under the influence of perfect holiness and love. 

In proof of this, we may appeal (1) To the testimony of 
Scripture (Matt. xix. 26; Luke i. 37; Eph. iii. 20; 2 Cor. vi. 
Peaech.wxvin. 14+ Jer. xxvii. 5; Isa, xl. 26; (cf. Job. xli. ;) 
Ps. cxxxvi. 4; Jer. xxxli. 17). (2) To the testimony of reason. 
The perfection of God, and the creation of the universe, 
suggest omnipotence in God. 

The perfection of God may also be indicated by the follow- 
ing affirmations and negations : — 

I. That he is a “vémg Being or Spirit, having (a) a 
perfect intellect, which gives in action omniscience. (4) A ger 
fect conscience, which gives in action absolute righteousness. 
(c) A perfect sensibility, which gives in action all right feeling 
and desire. (d) A perfect will, which does all that power can 
do, under the direction of perfect knowledge, holiness, and love. 

2. That he is an zuzfizzte Being or Spirit, and so (a) [nde- 
pendent of any other being or force, — uncreated himself, and 
the creator of all else.’ (4) Unconditioned by time or space, 


1 Mosheim says: “ Deus est illa natura, que ipsa independens est, et ex qua 
reliqua omnia pendent”; and, from the independence of God, he proceeds to 
infer all his other perfections,— unity, spirituality, immensity, eternity, immu- 
tability; while from the dependence of all other things upon him are inferred 
his life, intelligence, and freedom. 


96 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


which condition all finite being; that is, eternal and omni- 
present. (c) Unchangeable in essence, in knowledge, in char- 
acter, and in blessedness. 

Query: Is conscience a separate faculty, or simply a 
peculiar exercise of intellect and feeling?’ 


PURPOSE OF GOD. 


The word “purpose”’ is often used to denote the resolve 
or determination of the mind to seek a particular object. 
But it cannot be wise for an omniscient Being to make any 
thing an end of action, unless it is known to be attainable; 
and, if it is known to be attainable, the means or mode of 
attaining it must also be known. Accordingly, the purpose 
of God, embracing both end and means, must comprehend 
whatever he has determined to do or to permit.* 

This is evident from many portions of Scripture, (for 
example, Acts xv. 18; xvii. 26; Rom. viii. 28; 1x. 11; Eph. 
i. 4, 11; 2 Thess. il. 13; 2 Tim. 1.9; 1 Cor. i. 7 ieee 
34; Acts il. 23; iv. 27, 28; Ps. Ixxvi. 11; Provo vie 

From these and similar passages, it appears that the 
purpose of God (a) antedates creation; (4) springs from his 
own good pleasure; (c) embraces all the events of time; and, 
(2) goes into effect in every instance. 

Contemplated from the divine side, such a purpose seems 
to be reasonable and necessary. How a perfect Being could 
undertake the work of creation without such a purpose is 
inconceivable. 

But, contemplated from the human side, it appears, at first 
sight, to be inconsistent with moral freedom and accounta- 
bility. Whether it is so or not depends, however, upon the 


1 See an elaborate and, in many respects, excellent analysis of the Divine 
Attributes, as attributes of Being, of Knowledge, and of Will, in Haseay “ Hut: 
terus Redivivus.”— Pt. 11. sects. 58, 59, 60. 

2 Hodge (C.) “Systematic Theology,” 1. c. ix.; “The Decrees of God”; 
Balmer (Robt.) “Remarks on the Doctrine of the Divine Decrees,” in “Theol. 
Tracts,” iii. 207-17; Baird (S. J.) “The Eternal Plan,” in “The Elohim Re- 
vealed,” ch. 11.3; Chalmers (T.) “Institutes of Theology,” vol. 11. Pt. 11. ¢. 3; 
“ Predestination”; Oosterzee (J. J. van) “ Christian Dogmatics,” vol 11. p. 44 
sq.; Princeton Theol. Essays, First Series, ‘‘ The Decrees of God,” 60 sq. 


The Perfection of God. 97 


way in which the purpose is accomplished. It may interfere 
with human freedom no more than does perfect foreknowledge. 

The same reply must be made to those who assert that 
such a purpose on the part of God renders the use of means 
needless and vain. For there is every reason to believe that 
this purpose is to be accomplished, in a great measure, by 
the use of means. 

Says Canon Liddon, in a discourse on “ Prayer, the Charac- 
teristic Action of Religion,” “God orders all that happens to 
us, and, in virtue of his infinite knowledge, by eternal decrees. 
But he also says to us, in the plainest language, that he does 
answer prayer; and, that practically his dealings with us are 
governed, in matters of the greatest importance, as well as of 
the least, by the petitions which we address tohim. What if 
prayers and actions, to us at the moment perfectly sponta- 
neous, are eternally foreseen, and included within the all- 
embracing predestination of God, as factors and causes, 
working out that final result, which, beyond all dispute, is the 
product of his good pleasure? Whether I open my mouth, 
or lift my hand, is, before my doing it, strictly within the 
jurisdiction and power of my personal will; but, however I 
may decide, my decision, so absolutely free. to me, will have 
been already incorporated by the all-seeing, all-controlling 
Being, as an integral part, however insignificant, of his one, 
all-embracing purpose, leading on to effects and causes 
beyond itself. Prayer, too, is only a foreseen action of man; 
which, together with its results, is embraced in the eternal 
predestination of God. . . . That which is to us a free self- 
determination may be not other than a foreseen element of 
his work.” — Prayer-Gauge Debate, p. 300. 

In considering the purpose of God as logically antecedent 
to his action ad extra, it is natural to inquire after the chief 
end- sought by him in that action; for a reasonable being 
always acts with a view to the accomplishment of some end 
or ends which are deemed worthy.’ 

: 1 Edwards (J. Sen.) “A Dissertation concerning the End for which God 
created the World,” “ Theol. Tracts,” 11. 293 sq-; Martin (J.) “The Glory of God 


as the Great End of Moral Action,” in “ Theol. Tracts,” 111. 221-42; Baird (S. 
J.) ““God’s Object was to reveal himself,” in the “ Elohim Revealed,” p. 8. sq. 


98 Manual of Systematie Theology. 


The Scriptures suggest two distinguishable, if not opposite 
ends, for the attainment of which God undertook the work of 
creation and moral government, namely, the manifestation 
of his own glory, and the communication of good to his 
creatures. 

Of the passages which suggest that the end for which God 
created the world was his own glory, the following may be 
cited: (Prov. xvi. 4; Rom. xi. 36; Col. 1, 16;0)temeeeeon 
Isa. xlvili. 11; xlitt. 6, 7; Ix. 21; lxi. 3;. Ephieaeeeeee 
xvii. 10; 2 Thess. i. 10-12; 1 Peter iv. 11; Rev. xiv. 6, 75 
1 Cor. vi. 20; x. 31; 1 Cor. i. 26—30; Eph. i) =e 

Of those which suggest that the end for which he created 
the world was the good of his creatures, the following deserve 
attention: (Ps. ciii. 9; Ezek. xvill. 32; xxxil 9D jo eae 
33; 2 Pet. i. 9; John iii. 16; Eph. i. 4; 1 Johmeameeee 
16; Gal. ii. 20; Eph. v. 20; Deut. vii. 7, 8; PSvaeveeaeene 
17; xliv. 26; 1 Cor. ili, 22, 23; 2 Cor. iv. 15> eee 
4-9.) 

It is possible to unite fhese ends, and suppose that the one 
supreme end and reason for God's action ad extra is the 
manifestation of his glory in the communication of good to 
other beings. And the fact that we become like him by 
being animated with love to others leads to a belief that his 
purpose to manifest his own glory is intrinsically the same as 
his purpose to create other beings, and impart to them the 
greatest possible good, and wice versa. 

But is not the existence of evil, and especially of moral evil 
in the world, incompatible with this identification? By many, 
it is asserted to be so; by others, it is denied to be so; and, 
by still others, it is said that, owing to his limited knowledge, 
man is unable to determine whether it is so or not.’ 

If a universe which contains in it a.race of beings able to 
do wrong as well as to do right is on the whole better, not- 
withstanding the presence of sin, than a universe without 


1 Ballantyne (John) “On the Origin of Evil”; Bellamy (Jos.) ‘‘ The Wisdom 
of God in the Permission of Sin”; Young (John) “Evil not of God”; Barnes 
(Alb.) “Sin and Suffering in the Universe,” in the Am. Presby. Rev. 1869-70 
Ernesti (H. F. T. L.) “ Ursprung der Siinde.” 


The Perfection of God. 99 


such a race of beings, the question may be answered in the 
negative; and this view is required by the scriptural and 
rational doctrine of God’s perfection. 

It may then be said that God purposed to originate a uni- 
verse which would contain beings who could do wrong as 
well as right, and to use none but moral means in preventing 
them from doing wrong. His purpose included a permission 
of moral evil in this sense only —that he would not effectively 
exclude it from the universe, but not in the sense that he 
authorized any one to commit sin, or left any moral being in 
doubt respecting his hatred of sin. 

The doctrine of the divine purpose tends to fill the soul 
with adoring thoughts of God, and humble thoughts of self. 
Yet it is so apprehended by many as to make them feel that 
God is a “hard master.” It should, therefore, be studied 
with the utmost reverence and trust, and taught with the 
greatest care, in order that misapprehension may, if possible, 
be prevented. 


“ And not alone the natures are foreseen 
Within the mind that in itself is perfect, 
But they together with their preservation. 
For whatsoever thing this bow shoots forth 
Falls foreordained unto an end foreseen, 
Even as a shaft directed to its mark.” 
Bante Paradiso, VIII. 100. 


CREATION BY GOD THROUGH THE WORD. 


The first act of God in carrying into effect his purpose was 
that of creation. And by the act of creation is meant an act 
that originated being, and thereby increased the sum total of 
force in existence. For while neither the essence nor the 
power of God was diminished by that act, new being and 
power, in some sense outside of himself, were brought into 
existence by it. 

This statement is favored (1) By the language of Scrip- 
ture (2) John xvii. 5, 24; Eph. i. 4; (6) Matt. xix. 4; Mark 
xili. 19; Rev. x. 6; Gen. i. 1; (¢) Heb. xi. 3; Rom. iv. 17. 
Hence (a) there was a time when the worlds were not yet 


100 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


founded; (0) their establishment was a work of God; and (¢) 
the visible universe was not formed out of any thing previously 
existing. (2) By the absolute perfection of God. For the only 
alternative to it is pantheism or dualism; that is, (a) the doc- 
trine that there is no reality except God, or an emanation 
from God; or (4) the doctrine that either matter or spirit, 
outside of God, is eternal and self-existent. 

But, against this view of creation, two objections have been 
urged, (1) That it is unthinkable, and therefore cannot be 
true. But many things are credible which are nevertheless 
unthinkable. And (2) that it supposes a limit to the being 
of God, and thereby pronounces him finite. But this is a 
mistake. It rather declares his power and wisdom to be 
unlimited. No perfection of his nature is abridged by the 
view ; though, if it be correct, he is not the sum total of being. 

This first act of God was carried into effect by the agency 
of the eternal Word (John i. 3, 10; 1 Cor. viii. 6; Col. i. 
16; Heb. i. 2, 3). The language of these passages does not 
mean that God, the Father, exerted through the Word, as a 
medium, power which did not belong to the Word himself; 
but that the Word represented and revealed the power of 
God, the Father, in this act. The acting personality was that 
of the Word; but he did not act by himself alone: his nature 
was one with the Father’s, and his action was a perfect ex- 
pression of the Father’s nature and will. | 

Whether matter and spirit were created at the same instant, 
or at different times, the Scriptures do not affirm. It seems, 
however, to be intimated that the creation of angels was 
prior to that of men, and indeed to the present order of the 
material universe (Job xxxviii. 7; Gen. iii. 1, 24). But it is 
not, therefore, necessary to suppose that they were created 
before the substance of which the material universe has been 
formed was called into being. If creation may be divided into 
several acts, the following order of succession is probable: — 

(a) The creation of matter in its primitive state; but what 
that state was has never been ascertained. Probably, how- 
ever, matter was endowed at first with the properties: which it 


The Perfection of God. IOI 


now possesses, and was put into such motion that subsequent 
changes have been, for the most part, natural results of the 
properties and motions thus given to it. 

(6) The creation of vegetable and animal life-forces, as 
soon as the earth, or any other planet, was ready to receive 
and support them. The evidence in favor of successive crea- 
tions has not, it seems to me, been met by any equal evidence 
in favor of progress from race to race by natural developmen 
and selection. ‘ 

(c) The creation of men when the earth had been prepared 
for their reception. And, by men, are to be understood 
rational, moral, and religious beings, not essentially different 
from those who now inhabit the earth. The date of man’s 
advent cannot be ascertained with certainty from any state- 
ments made by Scripture, or from any facts yet discovered by 
science. 

(R) Just where the creation of angels should be placed 
must be left undecided. 


PRESERVATION BY GOD THROUGH THE WORD. 


All things created owe their continuance in being to the 
power of God. Two propositions are embraced in this state- 
ment: frst, that all created things have a being or nature of 
their own. And, second, that this being or nature is forever 
dependent on God, 

The statement is therefore opposed to either a pantheistic, 
dualistic, or deistic view of the relation which God holds to 
the world. For pantheism embraces the world in the idea 
of God, while dualism regards the world as uncreated and 
antagonistic to God; and deism pronounces the world, once 
created, perfect and self-sufficient. But the staterrent given 
above makes the world real, though created and dependent.’ 

In proof of this statement, reference may be made to the 
following passages of Scripture: (Job x. 12; Ps. civ. 29, 30; 
Psa) 26, 295 Nes iz. 6; Acts xvii. 28; Heb. i. 3; Col. i. 


1 Hodge (C.) “Systematic Theology,” 1, p. 278 sq. 


102 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


17.) And from them it is evident that the sacred writers do 
not represent preservation as equivalent to a perpetual act of 
creation; but, on the other hand, they clearly distinguish it 
from simple oversight, care, or direction. 

If it be objected that the view here given makes God the 
upholder of moral evil, since he upholds the evil-doer at the 
very instant and in the very act of evil-doing, it may be 
replied, (2) That God upholds what he has created, namely, 
the free moral agent ; but he neither upholds, nor has he cre- 
ated, evil-doing. (4) That the nature of moral government 
appears to justify, if not to require, the very course which God 
pursues; for to give the sinner time to repent is to give him 
time which he may use in further sin. And (¢) That God 
forbids wrong doing, and brings a vast amount of moral 
influence to bear against it. 

The doctrine that all created beings are forever dependent 
on God for existence, having no absolute life of their own, not 
only agrees with a certain feeling of dependence which is 
instinctive in man, but also tends to unite the Christian’s 
heart to God by a sense of unspeakable gratitude. He would 
not have it otherwise. He delights in the thought that 
underneath him are the everlasting arms. 


PROVIDENCE OF GOD IN CHRIST. 


The word “ providence” means, primarily, foresight, But 
as human foresight is associated with plans and efforts to 
bring to pass certain results, the word “providence” has come 
to signify the provision which God makes for attaining the 
ends of his government, and so the care which he takes of all 
his people, indeed, of all his creatures.’ 


1 Baird (S. J.) “The Providential Administration,” in “Elohim Revealed,” p. 
100 sq.; Calvin (J.) “Institutio Christiane Religionis,” Lib. I. c. 16; David- 
son (A. D.) “Lectures Expository and Practical on the Book of Esther”; Flavel 
(J-) “Divine Conduct; or, the Mystery of Providence”; South (R.) I. vin. 
‘All Contingencies under God’s Providence”; Bushnell (H.) “Sermons of the 
New Life,” “Every Man’s Life a Plan of God”; Hitchcock (I.) “ Special Divine 
Interpositions in Nature,” in Bib. Sac. XI. 776 sq.; Sherlock (W.) “A Dis- 


The Perfection of God. 103 


Of course, therefore, his “providence” is but a part of his 
work in carrying into effect his “purpose ;” and a large part of 
the scriptural testimony to the existence of his “‘ purpose ”’ is 
proof of his “ providence.” Provision rests upona plan. “I 
believe,” says Bacon, “that God. . . . doth accomplish and 
fulfil his divine will in all things, great and small, singular 
and general, as fully and exactly by Providence as he could 
by miracle.” 

The providence of God embraces such particulars as 
these: (2) Direct action of his own in the hearts of men 
(Matt. xviii. 20; (cf. xxviii. 20); John xiv. 20, 21; Phil. iv. 
m3; (ct. 1 Cor. xii. 3); Rom. v. 5; Gal. v. 22; Phil ii.13). 
(2) Divine action blended with human, as in prayer (Rom. 
wi 26> Jolin xvi. 23; (cf. xiv. 13, 14; Prov. xvi. 1, 9; =X. 
24; xxi. I); Jer. x. 23). (©) Divine action adapted to the 
moral states of men (Gen. vi. II—13; xviii. 20, 21; xix. 24; 
(cf. Ex. xix. 16 sq.); Josh. iii. 16; John iii. 10; Heb. ii. 4). 
(d) Divine power over-ruling and using the wickedness of 
men (Gen.1.20; Ex.ili. 19-21. (cf. ix. 12); 1 Kings xxii. 22, 
Saves) ixxvi. Fi; Rom. ix 17; Isa. x. 5, 7, 12, 15; (cf. Acts 
xvi. 22—39); Prov. xvi. 4; (cf. Waterland, Vol. V. p. 479 
sq.). (e) Divine power, using good and evil angels (Ps. ciii. 
20; Heb. i. 14; Matt. xviii. 10; Acts v. 19; 2 Sam. xxiv. 1; 
(cf. 1 Chron. xxi. 1). (f) Divine power, making use of 
irrational creatures and the elements of nature (Ex. viii. 12, 
13, 16, 19; Josh. x. 11; Joel i. 4-12). 

In administering his moral government providentially, God 
sometimes reveals its fundamental principles by laws adapted 
in form and detail to the condition of those addressed. Thus 
the laws of the Mosaic economy, in respect to domestic servi- 
tude, divorce for other cause than adultery, revenge for injury 
to kindred, and distinction of clean animals from unclean, 


course concerning the Divine Providence”; Charnock (S.) “The Providence of 
God”; Spurgeon (C. H.) 2d Series, “‘God’s Providence”; Zwingle (U.) “De 
Providentia Dei,” 1530; Leibnitz (G. W.) “ Essais de Théodicée sur la bonté de 
Dieu, la liberté d’’homme et l’origine du Mal”; Lange (J. P.) in Herzog “ Real- 
Enkylopadie” s. v. “ Vorsehung.” 


104 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


were adapted to the condition of the people as a io = 
that time. 

So close a connection unites all parts and events of the 
created universe that God’s government must be providential 
over every part and event, or over nothing at all. Hence the 
propriety of distinguishing between a general and a special 
providence is doubtful. Perhaps it would be well to charac- 
terize the providence of God as special in the case of mira- 
cles, gracious in respect to Christians, and particular in all 
things. _ 

While every event is to be regarded as strictly providential, 
it is not in all cases easy to ascertain the import of a par- 
ticular event. But, the more momentous an event is to 
any person, the more emphatically does God appeal to ts 
by it. 

Yet this by no means justifies one in denying the care os 
God over small events and insignificant beings. Jerome 
greatly erred in saying, “It is absurd to draw down the 
majesty of God, so that he know at every moment how many 
gnats are born, how many die; what a multitude of bugs, 
fleas, and flies there may be in the earth; how many fishes 
swim in the water. We are not such foolish adulators of God 
as that, while we draw his power down to the lowest matters, 
we are injurious to ourselves, saying that there is the same 
Providence over rational and irrational beings.’’ Just the 
view of heathen philosophers!—“ Magna dii curant, parva 
negligunt’’ (Cic. de nat. deor. ii. 66). But the Christian view 
is well expressed by Ambrose, a contemporary of Jerome: 
“What architect neglects the care of his own work? Who 
deserts and neglects what he has thought proper himself to 
found? If it is unworthy of him to rule it, was it not more 
unworthy of him to make it?” 

No other doctrine of the divine government satisfies the 
Christian heart half as well as the scriptural one, —that it is 
throughout providential ; and it is strikingly suggested by the 
words of a pagan writer: “If God will, you are safe, though 
you swim on a straw.” 


The Perfection. of God. 105 


DOCTRINE OF ANGELS. 


It may be premised, (1) that the word “angels” is here 
used to denote an order of rational beings distinct from man- 
kind; (2) that our knowledge of such beings is derived from 
the Bible alone; (3) that the Bible speaks of them because of 
their connection with men in certain relations and events; 
(4) that Satan and demons will be regarded as fallen angels; 
and (5) that other applications of the term “angels”’ will not 
be considered in this place. —See (2) (Gen. xvi. 7, 10, 133; 
xviii. 13 sq.); (4) (Eccl. v. 5; Isa. xlii. 19; Mal. iii, 1; 1 Sam. 
mi. 3)i5 (c), (Ps., ciy...4). 

I. Zhe NATURE of angels; or, in other words, their essence, 
their Zower, and their knowledge.’ 

(1) The essence or substance of angels. It has been com- 
monly believed by Christians ‘hat angels are personal beings 
who exist without bodies. And, in support of this belief, 
reference is made, (2) To passages of Scripture which call 
them “spirits: (for example, Heb.i. 14; 1 Kings xxii. 21; Mark 
emzoOu2s |) Luke xxiv. 39); | Sam, xvi: 14, 16,235 Xvill. 105 
mix wuke vil. 21° (vill. 2; Acts xix. 12, 15; 1 Tim. iy. "1); 
(2) To passages which represent them as God’s attendants 
and ministers (Luke i. 19; Gen. xxxii. I, 2; Deut. xxxili. 2; 
Pewisviirs 16> Matt, xxiv. 31; xxvi. 53; Luke xv. 10): -.(¢) 
To passages which represent them as superior to the known 
lawswoty matter (Acts xii. 7; Num. xxil, 23-27; 32,33; 1 
Chron, xxi. 14-16, 27). (ad) To passages which represent 
them as taking possession of men (Matt. xii, 26-29; Luke 


1 See on the whole subject, Ode (J.) “Commentarius de Angelis.” 1739; 
Twesten (A. D. C.) Dogmatik, IT. 305-383, in Bib. Sac. I. 768-793, II. 108 - 140 
Mayor (L.) “Scriptural Idea of Angels,” in Am. Bib. Repos., Oct. 1838, XII 
350-393; Stuart (M.) “Sketches of Angelology in the Old and New Test.” Bib. 
Sac. I. 88-154; Whately (R.) “Scripture Revelations respecting Good and 
Evil Angels”; Timpson ( .) “The Angels of God; their Nature, Character, 
Ranks,” &c., 2d ed., London, 1847; Rawson (J.) “Nature and Ministry of the 
Holy Angels,” N. Y. 1858; also articles in Herzog, Smith, Kitto, Fairbairn, 
McClintock and Strong; and Theologies; e. g. Hahn (G. L.) Die Theologie des 
Niilin S250) Sq, 


106 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


iv. 33, 35, 36, 41), and many others. Taken by themselves, 
these passages afford very considerable evidence that angels 
are bodiless. ; 

But against this belief and evidence, the following argu- 
ments have been brought: (a) The words of Christ in Luke 
xx. 36, which are supposed to prove that angels have bodies 
similar to those of the glorified saints; for the saints after 
the resurrection are said to be “like angels.” Yet the words 
of Christ, strictly interpreted, only prove that glorified saints 
will not marry, because they cannot die; and they cannot 
die because they are like angels, being sons of God. They 
may, then, be different from angels, in that they have im- 
mortal bodies; while they are like them in the particulars 
named by Christ. 

(2) The words of Jude vv. 6-8, are supposed to attribute 
a carnal nature to certain angels, and indeed to have refer- 
ence to the wickedness described in Gen. vi. 2,4. And it 
is argued that the expression “sons of God” in the latter 
passage signifies angels. (1) Because the same expression 
denotes angels in other parts of the Bible; (for example Job 
i, 6; ii 1; xxxvili. 7; Ps. Ixxxii. 7; Luke xx) 36)5gee 
is replied, that pious men are virtually called “sons of 
God,” in the Old Testament; (for example Ex. iv. 22; Deut. 
xiv. 1; xxxil. 5;. Ps. Ixxiii. 15; Hosea ii. 2); am@eemeeue 
Christians are represented as “sons of God” in the New 
Testament ; (for example Gal. iii. 26; iv. 5, 6). (2) Because 
the manifest contrast between “sons of God” and.“ daughters 
of men”’ requires us to interpret the former of superhuman 
beings, —that is, angels. This contrast, however, is suffi- 
ciently marked by supposing the former to have been the 
pious descendants of Seth; while the latter were the un- 
godly descendants of Cain. (3) Because this passage, thus 
interpreted, explains the otherwise unintelligible reference 
in Jude. This may be admitted, and still the inquiry be 
raised whether it is not better to leave the reference in Jude 
obscure and doubtful than to suppose evil angels capable of 


The Perfection of God. 107 


the unnatural offence ascribed to them by the proposed inter- 
pretation.’ 

(c) Many passages of Scripture represent angels as appear- 
ing to men in visible forms (Gen. xviii.1-g; Luke xxiv. 4; 
Acts i. 10). To this it may be replied, that in order to 
appear at all, they must assume a form of some kind, and a 
human form would be more suitable than any other. Besides, 
they are represented, also, as eating human food; and, if we 
infer that their corporeal appearance was normal, shall we not 
be constrained to infer that their eating of flesh, &c., was also 
normal ? 

(2) The existerice of finite beings who are incorporeal is 
said to be absurd. Bodies are necessary to bring them under 
the laws of space. They must havea material zov or@ and this 
must be a living body. But who knows this to be true? 
Our experience may be of little value in showing the possi- 
bilities of existence. With the same boldness, some say that 
an Infinite Being cannot know or will.? 

On the whole, we think the weight of evidence in support 
of the belief that angels are incorporeal beings is greater 
than that which favors the opposite belief, —‘‘ Adhuc sub 
judice lis est.” 

2. The power of angels. This must be very great, as com- 
pared with that of men (Ps. ciii. 20; 2 Peter ii. 11; 2 Thess. 
i. 7; (cf. Gen. x. 9; Isa. ix. 5). Both of the words in the 
first passage refer properly to strength or power, — mighty in 
power, or strong in might. Both of the terms used to 
define the superiority of angels in the second passage denote 
power, in the proper sense of the word. And angels are 
described, in the third, as “the angels of his might,’”’ mean- 
ing, those by whom the power of the Lord Jesus will be 
wielded, or, at least, fitly represented, at his appearing. 
The texts to be compared illustrate the use of the principal 
Hebrew term applied to angels in Ps. ciii. 20. 


1 See Hofmann, Baumgarten, Delitzsch, Kurtz, Knobel, Kalisch; and, on 
the other hand, Keil, Reinke, Vol. V., Calvin, and a great majority of interpreters. 
* See Bib. Sac. Oct. 1876, p. 740 sq. 


‘108 Manual of Systematic Theology. 
° 


To these statements, and to others of a similar character 
found in Scripture, may be added the fact that God is often 
called “Jehovah of hosts,” because the angels, as a great 
army, do his bidding; and, from the way in which this desig- 
nation is applied, we naturally infer that the soldiers of the 
heavenly host are mighty and glorious, answering, in some 
slight degree, and far better than any earthly beings, to the 
greatness of God. The following passages are also worthy 
of notice, as they indicate the might of certain angels, if not 
of all) (Rev. Vv. 23% 1s xvills29 js Soe 

Yet the power of angels is strictly finite, and, therefore, as 
nothing in comparison with that of God. They are never 
represented as sharing in the work of creation; and they are 
always described as subject to God or to Christ. — (See Heb. 
i) 14s) 11s 5;) Jude g)) 

3. The knowledge of angels. That this is very great, as 
compared with that of men in the present life, may be inferred, 
(2) From the language of Christ, as preserved in Matt. xxiv. 
36; Mark xiii. 32; for obviously this language is ascensive or 
climacteric, assuming a greater knowledge on the part of 
angels than on the part of men. The belief of the Jews in 
the time of David is probably indicated by the words of the 
wise woman of Tekoah to David (2 Sam. xiv. 17, 20) ; but we 
cannot appeal to that belief as certainly correct. (0) From 
the circumstance that they appear to have been for a long 
time at home with God (Deut. xxxiii. 2; Isa. vi. 3; Matt. 
xviii. 10; xxii. 30). We do not, it is true, know the time 
when the angels were created; but it is generally supposed 
that their creation preceded that of men, if not of the whole 
visible universe (Job xxxviii. 7). (c) From the devout interest 
or curiosity which they are said to feel in the work of divine 
grace (1 Peter i. 12; Luke ii. 13 sq.; Eph. 110@Q eye 
ili, 16; y. 21; (cf. Rev. v. 11, 12).. (2) From imstameesia@s 
demoniac and satanic intelligence recorded in the gospels 
(Mankiw 24 > (Matto: 1 Sqe) (ely Nets xian a) 

But it is evident from the same passages that the knowledge 
of angels is limited, and, in this respect, unlike that of God. 


The Perfection of God.,g ~ 109; 
€ 


Indeed, it is by no means certain that either good or evil 
angels can know what are the thoughts of any man by direct 
intuition, though they may be marvellously sagacious in 
conjecturing human thoughts. Neither Gabriel nor Satan is 
to be supposed omniscient or omnipresent. 

II. Zhe CHARACTER of angels. The word character is here 
used as a synonyme for moral character, and 4n this respect 
they may be said to form two perfectly distinct classes - 
For, — 

I. Many of them are szwless. This may be inferred 
(a) from the epithets applied to them by the sacred writers” 
fers 2240 dim: v. 21; 2 Cor. xi. 14; (cf. Deut. xxxiii. 2; 
Zech. xiv. 5). In the second passage referred to, they are’ 
called “elect angels”; probably because they hold some 
such relation to other angels as “the elect’”” among men do 
to other men. Ellicott says, “ With such passages as 2 Peter 
ii. 4, Jude 6, before us, it seems impossible to doubt that the 
‘elect angels’ are those who kept their first estate, and who 
shall form part of that countless host (Jude 14; Dan. viii. 10) 
that shall attend the Lord’s second advent.” (4) From the 
place where they dwell (Luke i. 19; xii. 8, 9; Matt. xviii. 10; 
Mark xii. 25; Rev. v. 11). It is impossible to suppose that 
impure beings would be represented as having their home 
with God in heaven. (c) From the worship which they are 
saan tonpay, unto’ God (Rev. v. 11; vii. 11 sq.; Isa. vi. 3): 
(dZ) From the offices which they are said to perform (Gen. 
Rexaitiene Watt. xxvi. 533 Luke xxii. 43; xvi. 22; Heb. 1:. 
¥4-7 (ct. Feb, xiii, 2). 

As to the present character of this class of angels, the 
teaching of the Bible is sufficiently explicit. But the history 
of mankind naturally suggests to us many queries in respect 
to the history of holy angels; for example, were they ever 
in a state of probation? Were they once tried, as were our 
first parents, to see if they would remain obedient to God? 
An affirmative answer may be given, with some confidence, 
to this question; both because such a trial seems necessary 
in itself to the proper training of moral beings under God, 


IIO Manual of Systematic Theology. 


and also because certain angels appear to have fallen away © 
from their allegiance to God. Are they now in a state of 
probation? Probably not; or, at least, in no other sense than 
a moral being is always under probation; in no other sense 
than glorified men will be under probation hereafter. Have 
they always been holy, or have they been recovered from a 
sinful state? There appears to be no evidence in the Bible, 
unless it be the use of the word “elect” in 1 Tim. v. 21, that 
any of the holy angels were ever guilty of sin; and this 
adjective is scarcely sufficient to justify us in supposing a 
fall and recovery of good angels. Is their stability in virtue 
due, in part, to either angelic or human apostacy? It may- 
be. Beholding the ruin that has overtaken other offenders, 
they may have been forewarned, and, seeing the wonders of 
redemption, they may have learned to love more than they 
otherwise would. Is their blessedness due at all to the work 
of Christ? Probably, yea, certainly, it is; for they take a 
profound interest in his work and the glory of his kingdom; 
but it is unsafe to infer, from Eph. i. 10 and Col. i. 20, that 
they have any need of the atonement as a means of redemp- 
tion. These passages, however, indicate the unity of God’s 
moral government, and the reason why some knowledge of 
angels is given to men. 

2. Many of them are szzfu/. This may be learned (2) From 
the efzthets which are applied to them; (for example Matt. 
x. 1; Mark iii. 11; Luke ix. 42; Matt. xii. 45; Luke vill. 2; 
Acts xix. 12-16). (4) From the place where they are said 
to dwell; (for example 2 Peter ii. 4; Jude 6; Luke viii. 31; 
Matt. xxv. 41; Rev. xx. 7, 10). (c) From the work which 
they are said to perform; (for example Job i. 6-9; ii. I sq.; 
Zech. iii. 1, 2; 1 Sam. xvi. 14; xvili. 10; I Kings xxii. 21 sq.; 
Zech. xiii. 2; Rev. xii. 10; Matt. xiii. 39; Luke 
John viii. 44; xiii. 2; 1 Tim. iii. 7; 2 Tim. it. 26; 1 Peau 
S Bphk: vi 11,125 2 Lind iv, 0)! 

Several queries are also suggested by the language of 
Scripture in respect to evil spirits; for example, (2) Are 
demons, together with Satan, fallen angels? We have 


The Perfection of God. II 


assumed this to be the meaning of Scripture, and would refer 
to the following passages in support of our assumption: (2 
Peter ii. 4; Jude 6.) But some have insisted that Satan was 
never a holy being, appealing to the following passages: 
(eam viii. 44; 1 John m. 8; Rev.. xii. 9.) It is, BS ey 
incorrect, to suppose that the phrase, ras the beginning,’ 

as used by John, refers to any other beginning than that 
spoken of in Gen. i. 1. The sinfulness of Satan antedates 
that of mankind. He has been known to our race in no 
other character than that of a tempter and seducer. To 
suppose that he was created morally evil is absurd; and to 
suppose that he is uncreated is to deny the supremacy of 
God. The only view consistent with biblical monotheism is 
that of his early apostacy ; and, if he apostatized, so also did 
all his angels, — that is, the demons. 

(0) Are they all doomed to eternal punishment? The 
Bible appears to render this certain (Matt. xxv. 41; 2 Peter 
ieearwey. xx. 2, 3, 10 (cf. Eph. i. 10, 21, 22; Col. i. 20; 
I Cor. xv. 25). The passages inclosed in parenthesis have 
been thought by some to predict a final restoration of all 
beings, including fallen angels, to the favor of God; but they 
do not seem to me to warrant such a view. 

(c) Has the recovery of their forfeited state ever been 
possible? The Bible nowhere intimates that it has; while 
the most natural inference from the language of Peter and 
Jude is, that it has not. Many modern critics affirm that the 
language of Peter and Jude can only be reconciled with that 
of other parts of Scripture, by supposing that some of the 
apostate angels have been kept in close confinement since 
their fall, while others have been allowed to roam abroad and 
tempt mankind. But this view is precarious ; and, even if it 
were correct, it would not prove that any offer of pardon has 
been made to the unconfined apostates. Besides, the Bible 
seems to assign the first place in evil to Satan, who is cer- 
tainly represented, as in some sense, free to wander up and 
down the earth, tempting mankind. Perhaps tartarus is not 
so much a place as a state, and the confinement not so much 
local as moral and providential. 


112 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


(d) In what did the peculiar enormity of their original sin 
consist? Any reply to this must be conjectural. It is evi-. 
dent, however, that one, at least, of the angels must have 
sinned without being tempted thereto by any living being; 
but it is improbable that this was the case with all. Hence, 
the enormity of their sin must be sought in something else. 
Perhaps it was in this, that they had greater knoWledge of 
God than was possessed by Adam and Eve,—a knowledge 
due either to their longer life before sin, or to their closer 
relation to God, or to both these circumstances combined. 

(e) Have we any right to say that their sin was greater 
than that of our first parents? Either their sin was greater, or 
some other circumstance rendered the course which was 
taken with men less appropriate for them. The government. 
of God is always determined by sufficient reasons. It is holy 
and wise. 

III. Ye EMPLOYMENT of angels. 

. 1. Of good angels. This is indicated (a) By the names 
which are given to them in the sacred record: in Hebrew,. 
822, properly an abstract noun, signifying execution, ser- 
vice, sending, but generally used as a concrete, meaning (1), 
messenger, and (2) messenger of God; in Greek, &yyehos, 
signifying also (1) messenger, and (2) messenger of God. It 
is to be observed that Hebrew names were often significant 
of the office or character of those to whom they were given. 
In this case, obviously, the name was derived from the office 
or employment, —that is, from the employment of this order 
of beings with reference to men. But it would be a hasty 
inference should we say that, because they are called angels, 
their time is mostly given to the work of bearing messages 
from God to his creatures. In respect to men only can their 
namie justify such an inference. As known by men, they are 
God’s messengers. ! 

‘The same is proved (4) By the actions ascribed to them by 
the same authority. — See 1 Kings xix. 5; Matt. i. 20; ii. 13, 
193, Luke i, 11 sq. ;; Acts v.19; vill. 26; xii. 7: Hebsameees 
Ps.: xei,. 12; Deut. xxxin. 2; Ps. Ixvill.. 18; Acts gaia 


The Perfection of God. 113 


Gal. iii. 19; Heb. ii. 2. From these passages we conclude 
that angels were often employed by Jehovah as his messengers 
to men, that they took some part in delivering the law on 
Sinai to Moses, and that they execute the will cf God among 
men whenever he pleases, be that will gracious or retributive. 

But it has been asserted with confidence (a) That particular 
men or nations or elements are intrusted to the care of par- 
ticular angels, who are therefore called “ guardian angels.” 
foader evil, TO5 Acts. xi. #5; Dan. x. 5 sq. 20, 21;. xii. 1; 
ere. t, 25 xiv. 8; xvi. 5; xix. 17.) In Matt. xvii. 10, it 
is said of believers in Christ that “their angels do always 
behold the face of my Father who is in heaven”; but this 
may only signify that the angels who are ministering spirits 
to Christians dwell in heaven as their home, and are permitted 
to see God face to face. It does not prove that a particular 
angel is put in charge of a particular believer; nor does it 
prove that angels spend most of their time in serving the 
heirs of salvation. In Acts xii. 15, an expression is used 
which implies a belief in the doctrine of ‘‘ guardian angels,” 
and also a belief that each man’s angel appeared sometimes 
in the semblance of the person himself. But we do not know 
who the speakers were; they may not have been inspired 
persons ; and nowhere else in the Bible is there any trace of 
this supposed imitation of the form or voice of particular 
men. — See Wetstein ad loc. and the note of Hackett. Owing 
to the dramatic and symbolical character of Revelation, it 
seems to be unsafe to rely upon the representations which it 
gives of angels as literally exact; and therefore the doctrine 
of tutelary angels is nowhere taught, unless it be in the book 
of Daniel. 

In Dan. x. 21, a heavenly messenger addressing Daniel 
uses the expression, “ Michael, your prince”; and in xii. 1 it 
is said that ‘‘in those days shall Michael stand up, the great 
prince which standeth for the children of thy people.” 
Here, certainly, a particular angel may be meant, who was 
charged with the duty of guarding the interests of the chosen 
people ; but whether he did this always, or only at a certain 


114 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


crisis of their history, is not stated. More exactly, it is only 
stated that he did this at a certain crisis. 

The doctrine of tutelary angels does not, therefore, seem to 
be clearly taught in the holy Scriptures. 

(6) It has been supposed that the holy angels are, in some 
real sense, an organized community, kingdom, or army. — 
(See Luke ii. 13 ; Rev. xii. 7; xix. 14; 2 Peter ii. 113; 1 Thess. 
iv. 16; Jude 9; (cf. Luke i. 19; Rev. viii. 2,6; Rom. viii. 
38; 1 Pet. ili. 22; Eph. iii.,10; Col. ii. 10, 95 jee 
Col. 1..16.)' Also Eph: iii. 15; Hb. xi: 22) 23m : 

From these passages it may be inferred (1) That holy 
angels do not live and act every one by himself, but rather in 
sublime order and concert. (2) That some of them are dis- 
tinguished for wisdom and strength above their fellows, and 
are, therefore, under Christ, leaders of the celestial host. 
(3) That these leaders have different degrees of authority, 
according to their several ability. Hahn classifies them 
thus: (2) Archangels (especially Michael), or those who stand 
before God. (4) Primacies, égyai. Thrones, oro, or au- 
thorities, Soveia. Powers, dvvauer. (c) Lordships, «vguryzes. 
(4) Thaf something analagous to tribal or local divisions may 
exist among them. Yet this is by no means certain. (Eph. 
ili. 15). 

(c) It has likewise been supposed that the holy angels are 
very numerous: (Matt. xxvi. 53; Heb. i. 14; xii. 22; Rev. v. 
11; Dan. vii. 9, 10). The word of God, it will be seen, fully 
justifies the belief referred to. But whether the unfallen 
angels outnumber the fallen, we can not tell; though it would ~ 
be pleasant to suppose that they do. 

Remark (1) No religious veneration should be paid to 
angels: (Col. ii. 18; Rev. xix. 10; xxii. 8, 9.) 

Remark (2) Neither should they be invoked as advocates 
of men before the throne of God; for there is one Mediator 
between God and men; and, besides, angels are not omni- 
present. 

Remark (3) The doctrine of angels, and especially of good 
angels, “renders more clear our conception of the all-surpass 


The Perfection of God. II5 


ing majesty of God, —of the divine greatness of the Lord, and 
of the glory of his yet future appearing... It raises man, 
by reminding him of his exalted rank and high destiny 
(Matt. xxii. 30). It shames the sinner, by asserting to him 
the possibility of a normal development of spiritual beings, 
and at the same time by showing to him their interest in the 
work of his conversion. It directs the Christian to a lofty 
source of consolation (Ps. xci. 11. 12) ; an excellent example 
(Matt. vi. 10), and a heart-cheering perspective’ (Hebrew. xii. 
22). Oosterzee. 


We come now — 

(2) To the employment of evil angels, which may be treated 
briefly, since it is, speaking generally, just the opposite of 
that to which good angels are devoted. The kind of activity 
characteristic of evil spirits is indicated, (1) By the ames 
given to their chief, — namely, adversary, slanderer, and per- 
haps Apollyon (1 Chron. xxi.1; Matt.iv. 1; ix. 34; 1 Peter 
Wausipelkev. IX. I1; xii. 9, 10): His followers are like him, 
working toward the same end which he seeks. (2) By the 
actions ascribed to him or to them (1 Chron. xxi. 1; "Job. i. 6 
Sopeuke wii, 12); Joh xii..2; 2-Cor, xi. 14; 1 Tim. il 7; 
imaeewlim. 11.26; 1 Peter v. $; Rev. xx. 1, 3). (3) By their 
taking possession of men.? 

We mention this separately, because it seems to have been 
limited to a brief period of time. From the accounts in the 
New Testament, we conclude (1) That evil spirits can so 
unite themselves to a human being as to control his bodily 
organs, causing dumbness or blindness (Matt. ix. 32; xii. 
22; Luke xi. 14). (2) That they can thereby produce or 
aggravate disease, —as insanity, epilepsy, lunacy, emaciation 
(Matt. viii. 28; xvii. 15 sq.; Mark ix. 18; v. 3 sq.; Luke viii. 


1See Farmer on “ Demoniacs;” Owen, “ Demonology of the New Testament,” 
“Bib. Sac.,” xvi. 116 ; “Demoniacal Possessions of the New Testament,” “Am. 
Presb. and Theol. Rev.,” 1865, 495 sq.; Hovey on “ The Miracles of Christ,” ch. 
iv.; Smith’s “ Dict. of the Bible,” article “Demon”; Kitto’s “Cyc of Bib. Lit.” 
article “Demon”; Herzog, iii. 240, art. “ Damonische”; Kitto’s “Jour.,” iv. 1, 
vii. 394; “ Meth. Quar. Rev.,” x. 213; Appleton’s Works, ii. 94. 


116 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


28, 29; ix. 39). (3) That their presence was revealed by 
some peculiarity unknown to us at the present day. (4) That 
their usurped control over the bodily organs of men was not 
confined to those pre-eminently wicked (Mark ix. 14-28). 

Remarks. (a) With reference to the demons, their removal” 
was called a “casting-out’’ (Matt. viii. 16; x. 1, 8; Mark 
i. 34, 39); with reference to the demoniacs, a “healing” 
(Matt. xv. 28; Luke vi. 18; vii. 21). (4) Some of the Jews 
claimed to. cast out demons (Matt. xii. 27; Josephus Antiq. 
viii. 2,5). Whether Christ indorsed the correctness of their 
claim is doubtful. (¢) Evil angels are spoken of asa king- 
dom (Matt. xii. 26; Mark iii. 24; Luke xi. 18; Rev. xii. 7) 
with a ruler at their head (Matt. ix. 34; xii. 24; xxv. 41; 
Rev. xii. 7,9; 2 Cor. xii. 7). This ruler is called, by way of 
eminence, The wicked one (Matt. v. 37; vi. 13; xill. 19, 38; 
John xvii. 15; 1 John ii. 13, 14; iii. 12; v. 18, 19; Eph. vi. 
16; 2 Thess. iii. 3; The satan (Matt. xii. 26); The devil 
(Matt. xiii. 39); The enemy (Matt. xiii. 25); The adversary 
(1. Tim. v. 14; 1 Peter v. 8); The accuser of the brethren 
(Rev. xii. 10); The spirit of error (1 John iv. 6); The ruler of 
this world (John xii. 31; xvi. 11); (cf. xiv. 30;) The god of 
this world (2 Cor. iv. 4); The old serpent (Rev. xii. 9; xx. 2) ; 
The great dragon (Rev. xii. 3, 4 sq.; xiii. 2,4). “ Army of 
fiends, fit body to fit head,” Milton Par. Lost, iv. 953. This 
same prince of the demons is represented as ruling over man- 
kind (1 John v. 19; John xiv. 30; xil, 31; xvi. 985 2) Corn 
iv. 4). 

The language of these and other passages of the New Tes- 
tament is very strong. Satan is even represented as having 
in some sense the power of death; which, however, cannot 
mean that he has power to take the lives of men at will, or 
that he is the one who does put an end to the natural lives of 
most men (Heb. ii. 14). It may be worthy of notice that 
Satan’s subordinates also bear sway over men (Eph. vi. 12). 
To many minds the idea of such a kingdom is very awful. 
They prefer to think of evil spirits as acting without skill or 
concert; but this is not the doctrine of the New Testament. 


The Perfection of God. 117 


There is wonderful order in their madness. Still, their power 
over men is limited. They can do nothing without man’s 
consent; and their apparent victories lead only to a more 
complete overthrow. 

Queries. (1) Are demons still permitted to take possession 
of men as in the time of Christ? We believe not; at any 
rate we are not aware of any evidence that would justify an 
affirmative answer to this question. 

(2) If not, why were they permitted to do it then? Pos- 
sibly that the lordship of Christ over the invisible world 
might be signally revealed, even in his humiliation. “The 
clearest revelation of heaven,” says Macmillan, “is the neces- 
sary correlative of the clearest revelation of hell.” Satan has 
been called Dez Simius, the ape of God; “ He can only sow 
tares, —an imitation of wheat.” 

(3) Are the rappings, table-movings, &c., of modern times, 
the direct work of evil spirits? From the best evidence we 
have, it seems to us far more likely that they are of mundane 
origin. 

(4) Have evil angels any special connection with pagan 
deities? (1 Cor. x. 20, 21; viii. 4.) No other connection 
than they have with all great manifestations of sin in the 
world. 

(5) Will evil spirits resume their former modes of action at 
any future period? (Rev. xx. 8.) Possibly, yet with varia- 
tions adapted to the weakness of man at the time. 


118 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


PART FOURDE: 


THE DOCTRINE OF MAN. 


THE topics which belong to this part of theology are the 
unity of mankind, the essential elements of human nature, 
the endless existence of man, the moral constitution of man, 
and the sinfulness of man. . 


I. -THE UNITY OF MANKIND. 


It seems to us, on the whole, evident that all the races or 
varieties of mankind belong to one species. And in support 
of this view we appeal with a good degree of confidence : — 

1 Yo the Holy Scripture. — Gen. i. 27; ii. 7, 15 Sq.3 Vi. 7, 
8; vii. 21; viii. 1,,sq.; Acts xvii. 26; Rom. v. 12) sqysusear 
xv. 21, 22. These passages appear to be sufficiently plain; 
and we are aware of no good reason for doubting that their 
writers believed in the unity of the human race. The word 
aiuazos in Acts xvii. 26, is omitted by Lachmann, Tisch- 
endorf and Tregelles; but its absence does not weaken the 
value of the text for our argument. 

2. To the Anatomical Structure of Men. This is nearly the 
same in all varieties of the human race. The differences 
between the highest and the lowest types of mankind are 
said by competent authorities to be less than the difference 
between varieties of the same species in some of the lower 
animals. 

3. To the Physiological Peculiarities of Men. (1) All races 
are fruitful with one another. (2) The duration of pregnancy 
is the same in all. (3) The normal temperature of the body is 
the same. (4) The mean frequency of the pulse is the same. 
All these are facts of special importance to the argument. 

4. To the Pathological Characteristics of Men. Al varieties 
of men are liable to the same diseases in the same circum- 


The Doctrine of Man. 1 fe) 


stamces. This is not true of other animals. Again, the 
blood of a healthy man, injected into the veins of a feeble 
one, is far more invigorating than that of any other animal; 
just as the blood of a horse is better for another horse than 
is that of any animal of a different species. Besides, human 
blood is distinguishable by the aid of the microscope from 
that of any other animal.’ 

5. Zo the Duration of Human Life. This is nearly the 
same in all varieties of mankind. The differences between 
different nations are slight, and probably due to the influences 
of climate and civilization, acting through long periods. 

6. To the Cardinal Powers of the Human Mind. These 
are everywhere the same. The mental, moral, and religious 
capacities of the human spirit are identical in kind the world 
over. This is a great point. 

Note. Just now the tendency of scientific speculation is 
favorable to the Darwinian hypothesis, of progress by natural 
selection, —a theory which makes far less of the distinction 
between different species than any other; but, whatever of 
truth may be represented by the hypothesis of Darwin, it is 
quite insufficient to account for the origin of the human 
spirit, and need not therefore occupy our time in a theological 
course. 


1 See Pritchard (J. C.) “ Researches into the Physical History of Man,” and 
“The Natural History of Man,” botn able works; Smith (T.) “The Unity of the 
Human Race,” &c.; Hale (M.) “ Primitive Origination of Man”; Caldwell (C.) 
“Thoughts on the Original Unity of the Human Race,” adverse to its Unity; 
Cabell (J. L.) ‘The Testimony of Modern Science to the Unity of Mankind,” a 
very good discussion; Quatrefages (A. de) “Unité de l’Espece Humaine,” also 
“Histoire Naturelle Generale,” “ Revue des deux Mondes,” Nov, Dec., 1868, 832 
sq.; Ladevi-Roche (M.) “ L’Unité des Races Humaines d’apres des donnees de la 
Psychologie et de la Physiologie”; Whitney (W. D.) “‘ Language, and the Sludy 
of Language”; Miiller (M.) “Lectures on the Science of Language,” series I. 
and II.; Bunsen (Chev.) “Philosophy of History,” or Vols. II. and III. of 
“Christianity and Mankind”; Smith’s (W.) “Dictionary of the Lible,” in the 
article “Confusion of Tongues”; Burnouf (E.) “La Science des Religions,” 
several articles in the ‘“‘ Revue des deux Mondes” of 1867 and 1868; Ehren- 
feuchter (F.) “ Entwickelungsgeschichte der Menschheit in Ethischen Beziehung”’; 
Rauch (P. M.) “Die Einheit des Menschengeschlechtes”; Burgess (E.) “ An- 
tiquity and Unity of the Human Race”; Peschel (O.) “The Races of Man and 
their Geographical Distribution.” 


120 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


Il. THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF HUMAN NATURE. 7: 


It has long been a question with philosophers and theolo- 
gians, whether the being of man comprises three elements, — 
body, soul, and spirit, — or only two, — body and spirit ; and it . 
is Our purpose to notice in this section some of the arguments 
for each of the two views. 

In confirmation of the former view, it is said,1— 

1. That several passages of the New Testament teach it 
plainly, — (namely, 1 Thess. v. 23; Heb. iv. 12; Phil. i 27; 
Luke i. 47; 1 Cor. xv. 44). The first and clearest of these 
passages is translated by Ellicott, “May your spirit and soul 
and body be preserved whole, without blame, in the coming of 
our Lord Jesus Christ!’’ And he regards it as a “distinct 
enunciation of three component parts of the nature of man.” 
This is certainly the most obvious view of the apostle’s mean- 
ing ; and it is adopted, with some differences of opinion as to 
the exact distinction between “ spirit”’ and “ soul,” by Alford, 
Ellicott, Olshausen, Meyer, and De Wette; though De Wette 
thinks the enumeration merely “rhetorical.” 

In the second passage, the word of God is represented as 
“piercing, even to a dividing of soul and of spirit, of joints 
and of marrow,” —that is, cutting through soul and through 
spirit, through joints and through marrow. Here the spirit 
seems to be thought of as deeper than the soul, —as the 
innermost part of man’s nature. Tholuck defines “spirit” 
in this place as “the spirit according to its eternal side,’ and 
“soul” as “the spirit according to its zatural side.” 

The third passage reads thus: “That ye stand in one 
spirit, with one soul, striving together for the faith of the 
gospel.” Here it would not be difficult to explain the use of 


1 Olshausen (H.) “Opuscula Theologica,” 1834, p. 143 sq.; Goschel (C. F.) 
“Der Mensch nach Leib, Seele und Geist diesseits und jenseits,” suggestive; 
Delitzsch (F.) “A System of Biblical Psychology”; Heard (J. B.) “The Tri- 
oartite Nature of Man”; Boardman (G. D.) “The Scriptural Anthropology,” in 
Bap. Quar., vol. I., pp. 175-90, 324-40, 428-44; Usteri (L.) “Entwickelung 
des Paulinischen Lehrbegriffes,” Anhang I. S. 384 sq.; Schubert (G. H.) “ Die 
Geschichte der Seele”; Planck (K. E.) “Seele und Geist”; Ulrici (H.) “Leib 
uad Seele.” 


The Doctrine of Man. 121 


“soul” in the second clause, without supposing it to signify 
a constituent part of human nature, in distinction from the 
“spirit.” Indeed, there is much reason to suppose that the 
word “spirit” signifies, in this place, the Holy Spirit, in whom 
alone Christians can expect to be truly united. — See Alford’s 
note on the passage. 

The fourth reads as follows: “My soul doth magnify the 
Lord, and my spirit rejoiced in God my Saviour!’’ but it 
seems to us plain that the two terms, “soul” and “spirit,’”’ may, 
in this case, refer to one and the same essential principle. 
And the last text reads: ‘It is sown a psychical body; it is 
raised a pneumatic body.” We suppose that the word “soul” 
often denotes the animal life ; and hence, a psychical body is 
one adapted to animal life, while a spiritual body is one 
adapted to spirit life. The passage does not therefore estab- 
lish the fact of a distinction between soul and spirit. 

2. That several doctrines of the New Testament are rendered 
more intelligible by it; for example, that of hereditary de- 
pravity, that of regeneration, and that of eternal retribution. 
But we do not think any thing is gained in this respect by the 
tripartite theory of man’s nature. The other arguments 
adduced by trichotomists are equally inconclusive, and may 
be passed without further notice. 

In confirmation of the second view, reference is made, — 

1. Zo the plain teaching of the New Testament: as in Matt. 
Koeocuxxvl, 41 (cl, Mark xiv. 38); Luke xii. 22 sq.; Acts 
fee Om: 11:26, 20; 1 Cor. vi 3, 53 Vis TOSq.5 vil. 34; 
mucorwu- 1; Col. u. 5; Heb. xii..9; James ii. 26; 1 Peter 
li. I1; iii, 18; iv. 6. For these and similar passages make it 
certain that the words, ‘soul and spirit,” may often be used 
interchangeably, —to denote the spiritual part of man in dis- 
tinction from the bodily, and especially that human nature 
consists of two parts, body and soul, or flesh and spirit.’ 


1 Hahn (G. L.) “Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments,” sects. 149-154. 
Riddle (M. B.) “Lange on Romans” Am. Ed. “Excursus on Biblico-Psycholog- 
ical Terms.” — See ch. VII. v. 13.; Hodge (C.) “Systematic Theology,” vol. II. 
p. 44 sq.; Stu. u. Kr. XTI. Ackermann (C.) “Beitrag zur theologischen Wiirdig 
ung und Abwagung der Legriffe mvetua, vov¢ und Geist.” 


122 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


2. To the phenomena of consciousness. There is nothing, itis — 
said, in human experience, which may not be traced as read- 
ily to two essential principles as to three. It is as easy to 
believe that the spirit has direct connection with the body as 
to suppose that it has connection with it indirectly, through 
the soul; to suppose that one and the same spiritual principle 
has a wide range of susceptibilities, passions, and powers, 
some higher and some lower, as to suppose two spiritual 
principles have this range. In short, the law of parcimony 
forbids.us to assert any essential distinction between soul and 
spirit, unless we do it on the authority of Scripture. 

But it is admitted that the words “soul”’ and “spirit” are not’ 
strictly synonymous. If they do not denote two parts of 
human nature, they must be admitted to denote the same 
part as seen in different lights, or as performing different 
functions ; for, in certain connections, one of them is always 
used ; and, in other connections, the other. What, then, are 
the meaning and use of these words respectively? Trichoto- 
mists and dichotomists are alike interested in finding a true 
answer to this question. 

1. The word “soul” zs often used as nearly equivalent to self 
or person. To say, “My soul doth magnify the Lord!” is to 
say, “I, myself, do magnify the Lord!’ And, from this, it 
is but a step to the conclusion, that the soul is the synthesis 
of spirit and body,—the being which results from their 
union. — See Gen. ii. 7. The breath of life from God was the 
unembodied spirit; while the “living soul” was the result 
of the spirit’s union with the body: it denoted the complex 
being in its completeness. 

But a close study of the Scriptures leads rather to the 
view that man is called soul, a superiorz parte, and not because 
the word “soul” properly means a being composed of body and 
spirit. This is rendered certain by the fact, that the soul is 
sometimes contrasted with the body ; for, if the body were a 
part of the soul, it pace not be thus contrasted with it.— See 
Matt. x. 28; 1 Pet. ii. 

(2) Theword “soul” is ley to denote the spirit as modificd 


The Doctrine of Man. 123 


by union with the body. It is the intelligent life-principle as 
it exists in man. This definition accounts for the use of the 
word “soul,” rather than spirit, when reference is made to pas- 
sions and desires awakened by sense or the flesh, and also for 
its use when mere life is referred to. For, according to this 
theory, the soul is at once the vital power and the rational 
power in man. Its functions are partly unconscious, and 
partly conscious; partly animal, and partly rational, 

(3) Lhe word “soul” ts thought to be used when certain func- 
tions or relations are in the writer's mind; and the word“ spirit” 
when certain other functions or relations ave in his mind. 
Thus the immaterial principle in man is called soul, when it is 
conceived of as looking earthward, —as affected by the body, 
or as acting through the body; while it is called spirit when 
it is conceived of as looking God-ward,— as affected by the 
spirit of God, or as contrasted with the flesh. Hence those 
qualities of our inner nature which are modified by the flesh, 
and perishable, are suggested by the name “soul;” while those 
which are moral, religious, and eternal are suggested by the 
name “spirit.” 

It will be found difficult, and probably impossible, to 
account, by either of these theories, for the selection of the 
term “soul” or “spirit” in every instance where one of them is 
used. But by bearing in mind the last two, and also the fact 
that in many passages either of the words would be suf- 
ficiently exact, nearly all the language of the sacred writers 
may be readily explained. 


Ill, THE ENDLESS EXISTENCE OF MAN. 


The term ‘“man’”’ will be used in this section to denote 
whatever is essential to human personality. So long as the 
person exists, the man exists. 

It may be a question, whether the endless existence of man 
should be considered at all in this place; for it will be neces- 
sary to recur to the same subject in the last part of theology, 
and exhibit more fully some of the evidence of man’s unend- 
.ing existence. 


124 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


So close a connection, however, exists between the moral 
nature of man and his endless existence, that a notice of the 
latter cannot be postponed to the end of our course; yet it 
will be enough for the present, if the chief lines of argu-— 
ment are indicated.’ 

(1) The Scriptures predict such an existence. As to the 
pious, this is commonly admitted; but, as to the wicked, 
some entertain doubts ; yet these doubts, it seems to us, do 
not spring from any obscurity in the language of Scripture. — 
See Matt. xxv. 46. “And these shall go away into eternal 
punishment, but the righteous into life eternal.” 

In confirmation of the biblical view, we remark, — 

(2) The mental powers of man are adapted to endless exist- 
ence. He is put inrelation to endless being by his conception 
of it. His mind is also capable, so far as can be ascertained, 
of indefinite growth in knowledge and power. Such a mind 
seems to have been formed for perpetual existence. 

(3) His moral powers are adapted to such an existence. 
They recognize moral relations and qualities which are the 
same forever, and perceive the excellence of God more per- 
fectly the longer they contemplate it. Moreover, the incom- 
pleteness of moral government in this life, as judged by 
conscience, points to a future, if not to an endless existence of 
man, in which “all odds shall be made even.’? 

(4) Hits spiritual sensibilities are adapted to such an existence. 
They are fitted to enjoy permanently whatever is beautiful, 
true, or good. Such objects do not cloy. Hence, man 
appears to have been made “to glorify God, and enjoy him 
forever.” 


1 Channing (W. E.) “ Works,” vol. IV. pp. 169-182; Gray (J. T.) “Immor- 
tality: its Real and Alleged Evidences”; Simpson (A.) “ Prize Essay on the 
Immateriality of the Mind, and the Immortality of the Soul’’; Guizot (F.) 
“ Meditations and Moral Studies”; Newman (F. W.) “The Soul: its Sorrows 
and its Aspirations”; Parker (T.) “A Sermon of Immortal Life”; Miiller (J.) 
“Studien u. Kritiken,” 1833, sects. 703-794; Estes (H. C.) “ The Christian Doc- 
trine of the Soul”; Dick (T.) “The Philosophy of a Future Life”; Taylor (I.) 
“ Physical Theory of a Future Life”; Fichte (I. H.) “Seelenfortdauer u. Welt- 
stellung des Menschen.” 

2 See Jackson (W.) “ The Doctrine of Retribution”; also Butler and Kaut. 


The Doctrine of Man. 125 


“That religious instincts are as truly a part of our nature 
as are our appetites and our nerves is a fact which all history 
establishes, and which forms one of the strongest proofs of 
the reality of that unseen world to which the soul of man 
continually tends.” — Lecky, “Hist. of European Morals,” 
I. 339, 340. 

(5) His best aspirations point to such an existence. This is 
commonly admitted. Annihilation is never thought of with 
pleasure, except as a release from misery. It is coveted, not 
by the good, but by the bad; and not by them as desirable 
in itself, but as a less evil than endless woe. Says Ten- 
nyson, — 

“My own dim life should teach me this, — 
That life shall live forevermore; 


Else earth is darkness at the core, 
And dust and ashes all that is.” 


(6) The general belief of mankind points to such an existence. 
This belief is not universal: but it is so prevalent as to be 
esteemed normal; and, as normal, it is an indication of end- 
less existence on the part of man. 


IV. THE MORAL CONSTITUTION OF MAN. 


No part of systematic theology requires more cautious and 
accurate treatment than this. If man ever “sees through a 
mirror obscurely” (1 Cor. xiii. 12), it is when he undertakes 
to explore the depths of his own spirit, and ascertain its 
powers in the domain of religion. Andit has been truly said, 
that a “large portion of the predestinarian controversy has 
arisen out of an attempt to exclude, on speculative grounds, 
either one or other of the two fundamental conceptions, — 
the freedom of man, and the supremacy of God.’ 

That man is a moral being may be proved by an appeal to 
the word of God, to the common consent of mankind, and to 
the testimony of consciousness itself; for there is hardly a 
paragraph or doctrine of Scripture which does not imply the 


1 From Hannah (J.) “The Relation of the Divine and Human Elements iv 
Scripture.” 


126 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


moral nature and accountability of man; there is scarcely a 
law of civil government, or an institution of civil society 
which does not presuppose the same thing; and there is no 
rational man who fails to perceive a moral quality in many of 
his own actions and affections." 

It is also certain that moral character may be revealed by 
almost any kind of action possible to the human soul, whether 
it be that of thinking, that of desiring, or that of willing. 
Yet every kind of spiritual action may not be equally the 
proper cause or source of virtue and sin; and it is therefore 
important to ascertain, if possible, to which grand division 
of the soul’s life and movement they should be specially 
referred. 

Many persons regard the sensibilities, propensities, feel- 
ings or tastes, of the soul as being the source of man’s moral 
character. They believe that his thoughts and actions spring 
from his feelings, and say, that, as the heart is, so is the man. 
Others suppose the will to be fundamental and controlling, — 
the proper author of propensities and affections as well as of 
thoughts. Which of these views is correct ? 

(1) If one appeals to the Word of God for an answer to 
this question, he will readily find many expressions concern- 
ing man, as he now is, which seem to support the former 
view; (for example, Jer. xxxi. 18; Ezek. xxxvi. 26; Matt. 
vii. 17, 18; John vi. 44,65; xv. 5; Eph. ii. 5, 10; Phil. ii. 13.) 
“Turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou art Jehovah, 
my God.” —“ A new heart also will I give you, and a new 
spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony 
heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh.” — 
“ So every good tree bringeth forth good fruits ; but the cor- 
rupt tree bringeth evil fruits. A good tree cannot bring forth 
evil fruits, nor a corrupt tree bring forth good fruits.” —“ No 
one can come to me, except the Father, who sent me, draw 
him.” — “ For this cause, I have said to you, that no one can 


1 Butler (J.) “Sermons upon Human Nature”; Alexander (A.) “ Outlines of 
Moral Science ”; Rothe (R.) “ Theologische Ethik”; Jouffroy (Theo.) “ Intro- 
duction to Ethics”; Hofmann (R.) “ Die Lehre vom Gewissen.” 


The Doctrine of Man. - 127 


come to me except it be given him from the Father.” — 
“Without me, ye can do nothing.” —“ But God. . . . made 
us, even when we were dead in sins, alive with Christ.” — “ For 
we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good 
works.” — “ For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and 
to do, of his good pleasure.” From these passages, it appears 
that all holy action in man is due to divine grace; that the 
state of every unrenewed soul is such as to make this grace 
practically indispensable,’ and that moral action does, as a 
matter of fact, in the case of fallen men, spring from some 
permanent moral state or bias; and this permanent state is 
naturally thought to bea state of the feelings or affections or 
susceptibilities. 

But the inquirer will also find many expressions of, Scrip- 
ture which seem to support the latter view; (for example, 
eee xVill, 26, 27,31, 32; Matt. xi. 28—30; Acts il. 38; 
ili, 19.) ‘‘When a righteous man turneth away from his 
righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them, 
for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. Again, when 
the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he 
hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he 


shall save his soul alive.” — “ Make youa new heart and a new 
spirit ; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? . . . . Where- 
fore turn, and live ye.” —“ Come unto me, all ye that labor and 


are'heavy-laden, and I will give you rest,’ &c. “Repent, 
and be each of you baptized, upon the name of Jesus Christ, 
unto remission of sins.’’ — “ Repent, therefore, and turn, that 
your sins may be blotted out.” These passages clearly teach 
the duty of sinners to repent and seek the Lord: nay, sin- 
ners are commanded, to make themselves a new heart, as they 
are elsewhere commanded to love God with all the heart and 
their neighbor as themselves. This, therefore, is their per- 
petual duty; and hence it must be within the power of their 
will. 

There is, then, a seeming disagreement between the two 


1 Nemo per se satis valet ut emergat, oportet manum aliquis porrigat, aliquis 
educat.”— Seneca Ep. 52. 


128 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


classes of texts cited; and the Bible fails to answer directly 
the question proposed. The former class leads to one infer- 
ence, and the latter class to another. They may be reconciled 
by assuming, that, as a matter of fact, in the case of sinners, 
divine grace always takes the initiative in good, not because a 
sinner cannot, but because he w7// not, of himself, turn to the 
Lord. 

But the language of Paul, in Rom. ix. 15, 16, appears to 
turn the scale in favor of the Calvinistic view as practically 
correct. — “I will have mercy on whomsoever I have mercy, 
and I will have compassion on whomsoever I have compas- 
sion.” — “ So, then, it is not of him who willeth, nor of him who 
runneth, but of God who showeth mercy.” Beneath the 
whole discussion of Paul may lie the assumption that no man 
truly wills or runs without prevenient grace, —a grace which 
always takes the initiative in human salvation. 

(2) If one appeals to the history of mankind for an answer 
to the question proposed, the same result will follow; for on 
the one hand, according to the testimony of history, sin 
appears to be universal in the race. And the universality of 
sin, from the hour of the fall until now, is hardly consistent 
with any theory of action which does not trace it back to a 
bias of the heart; or, if any one prefers, to a bias of the will, 
regarded as embracing in itself permanent moral affections 
and susceptibilities. 

But, on the other hand, according to the testimony of 
sacred history, man was created upright, with a pure heart,’ 
and by an act of his. own will disobeyed the will of God. 
Hence Calvinists, as well as Arminians, admit that a holy 
being may fall into sin by exercising his freedom of will; but 
they deny that there is any evidence of power in a fallen being 
to recover, unaided, his lost rectitude of feeling. 


1 On the Sinless Condition of Man in Eden, reference may be made to the 
following works: Winer (G.B.) “The Confessions of Christendom,” p. 78 sq.; 
Hase (C. A.) “Libri Symbolici Ecclesiz Evangelice,” p. 55 sq.; Niemeyer 
(H. A.) “Collectio Confessionum in Ecclesiis Reformatis Publicatarum,” pp. 79, 
80, 88, 106, 116, 341, 368, 393, 476. 


The Doctrine of Man. 129 


Thus the general course of human: action since the fall 
favors one view; and the first act of sin in Eden the other 
view: and the question before us is not yet clearly answered, 
unless it be said that will is the cause of sin in a holy being, 
and wrong desire the source of sin in unholy beings. Many 
accept this double answer.’ 

(3) If one appeals to soral consciousness for an answer, the 
result will be far from certain; for, on the one side, will 
appear a certain repugnance to holy action, which seems to 
unnerve, without excusing the sinner,—a fearful suspicion that 
sin is not wholly avoidable by his own power, and an instinc- 
tive moral judgment against selfishness and want of love to 
God, as being in their very nature sinful. ‘For example, not 
only are malice and envy sinful, when ripened into act, but 
the smallest conceivable exercise of such feelings is evil; and, 
as they increase in strength, their moral evil increases. It 
does not require an act of volition, —consenting to these 
feelings, —to render them evil; their very essence is evil, 
and is condemned by the moral sense of mankind.”’” 

“The reality of sin, for every man whose experience is worth 
being taken as testimony, is not in particular volitions of his 
will, but in its abiding state, — not in what he chooses to do 
now and then, but in that unceasing, uninterrupted deter- 
mination of self to evil. This is the torment of his life, — 
that below his volitions to sin, below his resolutions to 
reform, even below his deepest self-examination, and his most 
distinct self-knowledge, below all the conscious exercises 

and operations of his soul,—there is a sinful heart, a dark. 
ground of moral evil.” 


1 Aug. “de natura et gratia,” I. c. 28; “Encheiridion ad Laur.” c. 30: Homo 
libero arbitrio male utens, et se perdidit et ipsum. Sicut enim qui se occidit, se 
occidendo non vivit nec seipsum potest resuscitare quum occiderit: ita, quum ~ 
libero peccaretur arbitrio, amissum est et liberum arbitrium.” Lut see Hazard 
(R. G.) “Freedom of the Mind in Willing,” and “Causation and Freedom in 
Willing.” Willing is always and by its very nature free. Speaking accurately, 
the sinner is just as free in the act of willing as the saint; but he does not act as 
wisely: he does not seek his real and highest good; and he knows this at the time. 

2 Alexander (A.) “ Outlines of Moral Science,” p. 145. 

3 Shedd (W. G. T.) “Tssays and I)iscourses,” p. 230. 


130 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


But, on the other side, will appear a persuasion that our 
moral action is free,—that we are able, in every instance, to 
do right, and refrain from wrong, —that, whenever we have 
decided in favor of evil, we could have decided otherwise; and, 
in view of this, a tendency to modify our instinctive moral 
judgment against evil biases or feelings, and to pronounce 
them innocent, unless they are indorsed or fostered by the will.” 
But it is replied to one of these statements that, “when we 
feel that we could and would act differently from what we have 
done, in certain specified circumstances, it is always on the 
supposition that our views and feelings should be different.” * 
Or, in other words, and with special reference to sin, it is 
said that ‘the will, in the time of a leading act or volition that 
is diverse from, or opposite to the command of God, and when 
actually under the influence of it, is not able to exert itself to 
the contrary,—to make an alteration in order to compliance. 
The inclination is unable to change itself; and that, for this 
plain reason, that it is unable to incline to change itself. 
Present choice cannot, at present, choose to be otherwise ; 
for that would be at present to choose something diverse from 
what is at present chosen. ... To suppose that the mind 
is now sincerely inclined to change itself to a different in- 
clination is to suppose the mind is now truly inclined otherwise 
than it is now inclined.” @ ’ 

In estimating the value of the testimony of moral con- 
sciousness in respect to the proper cause of sin in man, it is 
necessary to bear in mind the fact, that different persons 
appear to differ in their moral judgment when looking at the 
state of their feelings and affections. 

(4) Finally, if one appeals to reason, logic, or the causal 


! Metcalf (D.) “An Inquiry into the Nature, Foundation, and Extent of Moral 
Obligation”; Hazard (R. G.) “Freedom of the Mind in Willing”; Whedon 
(D.D.) “Freedom of the Human Will”; Tappan (H. P.) “The Doctrine of the 
Will determined by an Appeal to Consciousness.” 

2 Alexander (A.) “Moral Science,” p. 119; Princeton Theol. a First 
Series, “The Power of Contrary Choice,” 250 sq. 

3 Edwards (J.) “Inquiry concerning the Freedom of the Will,’ Part IIL 
sect. 4. 


The Doctrine of Man. 130 


judgment, a double response is heard; for, resting on the 
axiom that every event is due to a cause fitted to produce it, 
some argue, very justly, that choice, without any feeling or 
desire, is unthinkable; that choice, in accord with a weaker 
desire, instead of a stronger, is also unthinkable; and that 
such a choice, if possible, would be no expression of 
character, — would have no moral quality, would be purely 
capricious.’ 

The first of these statements is admitted to be true by Sir 
Wm. Hamilton, and many others, who assert in the strongest 
manner the freedom of the will. Thus, “We cannot possibly 
conceive the existence of a voluntary activity independently 
of all feeling ; for voluntary conation is a faculty which can 
only be determined to energy through a pain or pleasure, — 
through an estimate of the relative worth of objects.”? And, 
if the first be correct, the second must be correct also, for 
to follow a weaker inducement instead of a stronger is even 
more inconsistent with the causal judgment than to act with- 
out any inducement at all. Moreover, it seems to be self- 
evident, that any action of the will which takes place without 
regard to reasons, motives, or inducements must be capricious 
and even dangerous. 

President Edwards included feeling, desire, &c., in his 
definition of the will, and then affirmed that an element of 
love belongs to all virtue. Hence, this element must be in 
every choice or volition which is truly virtuous; for if love 
were not in the choice itself, but only in the effect of it, the 
choice would not be pleasing to God, and the effect, — 
virtue, — would be an effect without a cause. Virtue must, 
therefore, be logically antecedent to right volition, and must 
be in the feeling. 

But, resting on the same axiom, others argue with equal 
force, that a cause can only be responsible for its effect; that 


1 Edwards (J.) “Inquiry concerning the Freedom of the Will,” and “ Disser- 
tation concerning Liberty and Necessity”; Alexander (A.) ‘‘ Moral Science,” cc. 
13-23. 

2 Hamilton (Sir Wm.) “ Metaphysics,” pp. 130, 567. 


132 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


no person can be worthy of praise or of blame for what is in his 
heart without the consent of his will, and that no person can 
be worthy of blame for failing to make a choice, which he 
has not power to make. In a word, ability and responsibility 
are coéxtensive, and man can be accountable for that alone 
which has been made his own by his will. 

But how is the autocracy of the will vindicated? By some, 
an act of moral choice is pronounced creative, or independent 
of the law of cause and effect.’ 

By others, the imperative of duty is pronounced incommen- 
surable with any other motive, even as light is incommensur- 
able with sound. Hence, man is only free in his moral 
action.” 

It will be seen that neither of these theories is free from 
difficulties. The former is suggested by the spontaneous 
decision of conscience, by the facts of experience and observa- 
tion as to the influence of sinful affections upon conduct, and 
by the doctrines of election and regeneration by the Spirit of 
God ; while the latter is suggested by our sense of freedom 
in action, by the fact of human responsibility for moral con- 
duct, and by the action of conscience when swayed by the 
causal judgment. 

To judge of the twoeviews by their practical influence, it 
would seem as if both of them were needed, — the former to 
make men feel their need of divine help, and the latter to 
make them see the divine righteousness. 

And there is doubtless a measure of truth in each of these 
views. For the interdependence and interaction of the 
different powers of the human spirit are so subtle, so myste- 
rious, as to escape, in a great measure, the notice of con- 
sciousness; and the power of choice may, perhaps, hold 
different relations to the moral bias at different stages of 
probation. 


1 Tappan (H. P.) “ A Review of Edwards’s Inquiry into the Freedom of the 
Will,” and “The Doctrine of the Will applied to Moral Agency and Respon- 
sibility”; Hamilton (Sir Wm.) “Metaphysics,” II. XLVI.; Murray’s “Outline 
of Hamilton’s Philosophy,” p. 226 sq. 

2 Hickok (L. P.) “Moral Science,” p. 15 sq. 


The Doctrine of Man. 133 


The following propositions may be safely accepted as true ; 
namely, — 

(2) That every man has whatever power of will ts necessary 
to make him justly responsible for the moral good or evil in 
his character and conduct. 

(6) That this power ts inalienable, no degree of progress tn 
holiness or sinfulness having any tendency to destroy it. 
However holy Gabriel may be, he possesses it; however 
wicked Satan may be, he also possesses it.’ 

(c) That even the moral bias of man’s heart is in a most 
tmportant sense voluntary; since all spiritual activity ts at once* 
intellectual, emotional, and voluntary. 

(2) That moral character, as a permanent thing, may be 
discovered most readily in the state of the moral susceptibilities 
and feelings. 

(e) That conscious choice and volition indorse, express, and 
deepen this character or these susceptibilities ; while the latter 
in turn have great influence upon the former. 

(f) Hence, that virtue and sin cannot be traced wholly to 
either function of man’s spirit, —to his moral taste or to his 
will, 

(g) Yet a certain power of choosing his end or aim in life 
appears to be the rational basis of respanstbility. 


V. THE SINFULNESS OF MAN.® 
I. THE REALITY OF SIN IN MANKIND. 


it may seem unnecessary to say a word on this point; 
but it is known that some distinguished men have pronounced 
the idea of sin an illusion: and there is reason to fear that 


1 “Bib. Sac.” for 1839, p. 381. 

2 Says Calvin: “Nego peccatum ideo minus debere imputari, quod neces- 
sarium est; nego rursus evitabile esse, quia voluntarium sit. Pro servitute 
tmiserabiles sumus, pro voluntate inexcusabiles.” 

3 Miiller (J.) “The Doctrine of Sin”; Ernesti (H. F. T. L.) “Ursprung der 
Siinde,” etc.; Edwards (J.) “The Doctrine of Original Sin,” Works, Vol. II. p. 
309 sq-; King (W.) “The Origin of Evil”; Young (J.) “Evil not of God”; 
Ritter (H.) “U Ser das Bése und seine Folgen”; Bellamy (J.) “ The Wisdom of 
God in the Permission of Sin”; Woods (L.) Works, Vol. II, pp. 201-388, 


134 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


their influence, unless it be counteracted, will encourage 
many to indulge their selfish and sensual desires. 

The possibility of sin is denied on at least three grounds, 
namely, — 

(1) On that of Divine Predestination. God has fixed all 
events by his purpose and agency. They must, therefore, 
take place as he has determined; for his purpose cannot be 
thwarted. Hence, there is no such thing as sin. His pur- 
pose is good; and, as all events are embraced in his purpose, 
they, too, must all be good. 

(2) On that of Constitutional Causality. Every being has 
its own constitution or nature; and the contents or qualities 
of that nature, together with the circumstances in which it is — 
placed, must determine its action. Hence, the Author of 
that nature, and of the circumstances affecting it, is respon- 
sible for all that it does. 

(3) On that of Hereditary Depravity. Men are born with 
a damaged, or, at least, an imperfect moral nature; and, on 
this account, they cannot be altogether blameworthy for their 
evil conduct. 

These arguments against the reality of human sinfulness 
are plausible, but delusive. They rest upon the assumption 
that man has no true freedom, but is strictly included in a 
chain of causes and effects, every link of which is forged by 
something outside of his proper self,—either by God, in 
making human nature, or by God g/ws Adam in making and 
marring that nature. 


“Man’s Depravity”; Storr and Flatt, “ Biblical Theology,” Vol. II., b. III. 

Nitzsch (C. I.) “System of Christian Doctrine,” Part II.; Philippi (F. A.) “J<irch- 
liche Glaubenslehre,” Bd. IIL, “ Von der Siinde”; Heppe (H.) “ Dogmatik,” s. 
251 sq.; Schmid (C. F.) “Biblische Theologie des N. T.”-s. 196 and 494; 
Schleiermacher (F.) “Christliche Glaube,” I., 358; Tholuck (A.) “Guido and 
Julius, or Sin and Propitiation”; Schenkel (D.) “ Christliche Dogmatik,” &c. 
Bd. II., s. 80-455; Barnes (A.) “Sin and Suffering in the Universe,” Am. 
Presb. Rev., Oct. 1869, Jan. 1870; Herzog, s. v. ‘‘Siinde,” by Doértenbach; 
Hodge (Princeton Essays) “ Original Sin,” and “ The Doctrine of Imputation ”; 
Sheldon (D. N.) “Sin and Redemption”; Tulloch (J.) “ The Christian Doctrine 
of Sin”; Wardlaw (R.) “ Systematic Theology,” Vol. II.; Elodge (C.) “ System 
atic Theology,” Vol. II. 


The Doctrine of Man. ¥35 


But the assumption must be rejected, in view of its con- 
sequences; for, if consistently applied, it forbids us to 
believe (2) That man is free in any part of his conduct. In 
so far at least as the assumption rests upon the doctrine of 
predestination, or upon the theory of constitutional causality, 
it is applicable to all human action, —to thinking and speaking, 
to planting and sowing, as well as to choosing moral good or 
evil. But who is willing to concede that personal freedom is 
always an illusion? (4) That the action of his mind is trust- 
worthy on any subject. For, if its action is unworthy of 
trust when it pronounces conduct to be right or wrong, it is 
equally unworthy of trust when it denies this, —in fact, it is 
not to be trusted at all. The outcome is blank skepticism: 
we can neither believe nor disbelieve; and we know nothing 
at all. This consequence of the assumption may be accepted 
in words, but it cannot be in heart or in life. (c) That the 
action of beings thoroughly bad can be at all blameworthy. 
For, if a hereditary bias to moral evil diminishes the guilt of 
one who breaks the moral law, it does this by diminishing his 
moral power ; and, if he goes on in sin till he is wholly averse 
to good, he will then do evil without guilt. All his guilt will 
be due to his conduct while yet partly inclined to good. 
Hence, the most hardened men are the least culpable for 
their present action ; and Satan, if wholly evil, does not com- 
mit any sin. 

The consequences of the assumption on which the argu- 
ments against human sinfulness rest prove it, therefore, to 
be incorrect. Fatalism is false; and sin is no illusion. 

For, (1) The Word of God declares it to be a reality (Rom. 
iii. 9, 23; Gal. iii. 10). Christ himself came not to call tne 
righteous, but sinners to repentance. He came into the world 
to save sinners: yet he tasted death for every man; and all 
who are saved will owe their salvation to him. 

(2) The common judgment of mankind declares it to be a 
reality. This is evident from the nature of human govern- 
ment, from the literature of the world, and even from the 
language of men who deny the right of either God or man to 


130 _ Manual of Systematic Theology. 


resort to punishment, except for purposes of reformation or 
self-defence. 

(3) The consciousness of every man declares it to be a 
reality. There is no one who is able to say, “I have never 
sinned in desire, in thought, or in act. My heartis pure, and 
my hands are clean.” Every man knows that he himself has 
done what he believed to be wrong. ey 

There is, then, the best possible evidence of the existence 
of sin among men, — the testimony of Scripture, the testimony 
of mankind by government and literature, and the testimony 
of consciousness. ; 

Sin is no phantom, but the saddest of all realities ; and hence 
it is certain that men possess whatever power of will, of * 
self-control, and of self-direction is necessary to moral char- 
acter and responsibility. 

Il. The nature of sin tn mankind.’ In considering this 
point, it will be convenient to look at several definitions which 
have been thought to express the nature of sin. 

1. Stz ts want of conformity to the law of God.* In 
support of this definition, appeal is made (2) To the language 
of Scripture (1 John iii. 4; Matt. xiii. 41; Rom. vi. 19; 2 Cor. 
vi. 14; Rom. it. 25; v. 14; Heb. ii. 2; Gen. )3)eee 
many biblical designations of sin.—See Trench, New Testa- 
ment Synonymes, 226 sq. (c) To the test-prohibition of Eden. 
This was a positive, in distinction from a moral rule, and, as 
such, was specially adapted to test man’s disposition to obey. 
According to this view of the case, sin is essentially disobe- 
dience. 

Two remarks are suggested by this definition, namely, 
(2) That if the emphasis is laid on mere infraction of law, 
this being regarded as the core of sin, the definition is wholly 


1 Hodge (C.) “Systematic Theology,” vol. II. p. 133 sq-; Miiller (J.) “Die 
Christliche Lehre von der Siinde,” s. 32 ff.; Oosterzee (J. J. van.) “Christian 
Dogmatics,” II. p. 393 sq-; Sartorius (E.) “Die Lehre von der heiligen Liebe,” 
I, s. 61 ff.; Weitzaicker (C.) “Zu der Lehre vom Wesen der Siinde,” in the 
“ Jahrbiicher fiir Deutsche Theologie,” 1856, s. 131 sq. 

2 “Confession of Faith,” of the Presbyterian Church of the U.S. p. 186. 


The Doctrine of Man. ; 137 


unsatisfactory ; for what the law of God requires or forbids 
is required or forbidden because it is right or wrong: in 
other words, the law reveals, but does not originate right and 
wrong. It is an expression of something; and we need to 
study what it expresses, in order to learn the nature of sin. 
This is true of the moral law, which is principally meant in 
this discussion. (6) That if the emphasis is laid on the 
rightness or divineness of the law, on its being God’s law, 
this also raises a further question, to wit, What is it that 
the law brands as sin? What is it that man is forbidden to 
do? If this can be ascertained, the real nature of sin may be 
known. If, for example, all that the law forbids can be 

“resolved into pride, or traced back to pride as its source, then 
the principle of sin must be pride. 

Hence, the definition of sin, now in question, is formal 
instead of real, and, though correct, is not satisfactory. It 
settles nothing as to the unity of the law or the unity of sin; 
yet it is Scriptural, and in many respects extremely conven- 
ient. “There is,’ says Cicero, “a: true law, a right reason, 
which accords with nature, and is implanted in all men, which 
is constant, eternal,— which calls to service, and deters from 
wrong, with a voice of authority that the good always obey, 
and the evil disregard. This law cannot rightfully be changed 
by adding to it, or taking from it; nor can it be abrogated as 
a whole. We can be set free from it neither by the senate, 
nor by the people; we need seek no other man as an inter- 
preter of it: it is not one law in Rome, and another in Athens, 
one now, and another by and by; but this one eternal and 
unchangeable law will bind all nations in all times.” — De 
ike Lub: Tif, 22. 

“ Of law,” remarks Hooker, (vol. I. p. 240), ‘there can no 
less be acknowledged than that her seat is the bosom of 
God, her voice the harmony of the world; all things in 
heaven and earth do her homage, the very least as feeling her 
care, and the greatest as not exempted from her power: both 
angels and men, and creatures of what condition soever, 
though each in different sort and manner, yet all, with uni- 


138 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


form consent, admiring her as the mother of their peace and 
joy.” — “ Order is heaven’s first law; but is order the only 
thing sought by law? 

We accept this definition as beautiful and convenient, but 
not as ultimate. 

2. Sin is inordinate desire or concupiscence. In support of 
this definition, appeal is made to the language of Paul (Rom. 
vii. 8, 14, 18, 23, 24; viii. 6 sq.; Gal. v. 16 sq.; Rom. iv. 1; 
Phil. iii. 4; Col. ii. 18; Rom. i. 18 sq.; 1 Cor. i> F=4igen 
2 Cor. 1. 12 (cf. John iil. 6; 1.1355 Gen. vig 

But Paul uses the words “flesh,” “ fleshly,”.or “carnal,” 
and the like, in these passages, to denote man in his unre- 
newed state,—or man, in so far as he is not ruled by the 
Spirit of God: they refer to the whole nature of man. 

The body, indeed, is both an occasion and an organ of sin; 
yet sin no more originates in a bodily appetite than it does 
in the object which that appetite craves. A carnal mind is 
one that is obedient to bodily and sinful impulses,— to appetite, 
lust, pride, envy, wrath, and other evil affections; but sin 
originates in the mind or heart.— (See Prov. iv. 23; Matt. 
xv. 19.) 

This second definition is unsatisfactory: (@) Because it 
fails to refer all sin to a single root or principle. Any inordi- 
nate desire is sinful. (4) Because, in the last analysis, it is 
only a formal definition ; for inordinateness, or non-conformity 
to the divine rule, is supposed to be the very core and essence 
of sin. (c) Because it ignores the relation of will and choice 
to sin, and locates the latter in the heart or emotional nature 
of man. (d) Because, as commonly explained, it gives undue 
prominence to sensuality. This is, however, due, in all prob- 
ability, to Paul’s use of the term “flesh,” in describing 
human sinfulness, rather than to the terms of the definition. 


1 Gould (E. P.) “New Testament use of Zépé,” Bib. Sac. 1875, p. 36 sq.; 
Ernesti (H. T. L.) “ Vom Ursprung der Siinde nach Paulinischen Lehrgehalt ”; 
Cremer (H.) “ Biblical Theological Dictionary of New Testament Greek,” s. v. 
oap£; Hodge (C.) “Systematic Theology,” II. p. 140 sq.; Miiller (J.) “Die 
Christliche Lehre von der Siinde,” vol. I. s. 450 sq. 


The Doctrine of Man. 139 


3. Sin ts a deficiency of love to God and man. In support 
of this definition, reference is made, (1) To the Word of God. 
(Matt. xxii. 37-39; Luke x. 27, 28; Deut. vi. 5; x. 12, xxx. 6.) 
(2) To the general goodness of many acts performed by 
unrenewed men. These acts shine with every good quality 
but one; and they are sinful by reason only of their lack of 
love to God. (3) To God’s relation to sin. For, according 
to this definition, “‘ whatever is evil is so not by the Creator's 
action, but by the creature's defection.’””»—(Aug.) Uncreated 
and unsupported by God, it is unreal and unsubstantial; it is 
net something, but a want of something. And this view of 
sin is supposed to diminish the difficulty in accounting for its 
presence in the moral universe. 

But against this definition may be urged the fact, that sin 
appears to be more than a lack of moral power, more than an 
absence of suitable love: it appears to be often positive, 
energetic, and hostile to good,—hatred, instead of love; 
power, turned in a wrong direction." 

4. Sin is preference of self to God. De Pressensé says, 
that “there is only one way of violating the moral law, 
namely, to live to one’s self, and not to God, —to substitute self- 
ishness for love’? —(“ Jesus Christ,’ p. 234); and Auberlen 
says, that “the first element of sin is departure from God,” 
while the source of this departure is mzmzus amor sut. Julius 
Miiller, and a majority of modern theologians, adopt this 
definition. And it is supported (a) By many expressions of 
the sacred record; (for example, John v. 30; vii. 18; viii. 50; 
Pinte, xXxVi. 30; xx. 26; Rom. xv. 3; xiv. 7; Gal. 11. 20; 2 Cor. 
Patients 20 wr Cor. x. 24, 333 Johnixi. 25; 1 Cor: 
xiii. 5). (4) By a careful study of selfishness. For this dis- 
position will be found to comprehend self-indulgence, self- 
seeking, and self-will. And in these three forms, variously 


1 Says Calvin, “ Quare qui peccatum originale definierunt carentiam justitize 
originalis, quam inesse nobis oportebat, quanquam id totum complectuntur quod 
in re est, non tamen satis significanter vim atque energiam ipsius expresserunt. 
Non enim natura nostra boni tantum inops et vacua est ; sed malorum omnium adeo 
fertilis et ferax, ut otiosa esse non possit.” Lib. II. 1. 8. prope finem. 


140 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


combined, preference of self will be seen to account fot 
nearly or quite all sin. 

But it must be borne in mind, that selfishness, or supreme 
regard’ to self, does not forbid a secondary regard to other 
beings, any more than supreme love to God forbids a secondary, 
but great love to other beings. The definition uses the word 
selfishness in a broad sense, meaning by it only this, that the 
highest place, which belongs to God, is really given to self; 
and, thus explained, the definition is better than any other. 

R. Several passages of Scripture speak as if love of the 
world were the root of human sinfulness ; (for example, 1 Tign. 
vi. 10; 2 Tim. iii. 2-4; 1 Johnii. 15). But “external things, 
in their true and normal relation to personality, are only 
means; and they remain so, though their use may be per- 
verted. The man who loves earthly things instead of God 
really loves himself in them, — seeks, by means of them, his 
own gratification.” — (Miiller I. p. 133, Trans.) 


III. THE EXTENT OF SIN IN MANKIND. 


The evidence on this point justifies the statement, that all 
men, with the single exception of Jesus Christ, are morally 
depraved at birth, and, if they live long in this world, are 
found guilty of personal sin. By moral depravity is meant a 
state of the human soul which naturally leads to sin, and 
which can only be explained as an effect of sin.’ 

In proof of this, reference may be made (a) To passages 
of Scripture which include bodily death in the penalty of sin; 
(for examplé Gen. ii. 17; Rom. v. 12 sq.; 1 Coram 


1 Edwards (J.) “The Doctrine of Original Sin;” Shedd (W. G. T.) “Essays 
and Discourses,” p. 218 sq.; Miiller (J.) ‘The Doctrine of Sin,” I. p. 343 sq.; 
Woods (L.) “ Works,” I. p. 63 sq.; Wardlaw (R.) “Systematic Theology,” vol. 
II. p. 119 sq.; Hodge (C.) “Systematic Theology,” vol. II. p. 192 sq.; Oosterzee 
(J. J. van) “Christian Dogmatics,” vol. II. p. .423 sq.; Reuss (E.) “ History of 
Christian Theology in'the Apostolic Age,” vol. II. c. VI.; Lutterbeck (J. A. B.) 
“Die. N. 1. Lehrbegriffe,” Bd. II. sect. 51; Turretin (F.) I. Loc. 1x. Qu. x 
Philippi (F. A.) “Kirchliche Glaubenslehre,” Bd. III. sect. 151 sq.; Schmid 
(C. F.) “Biblical Theology of the N. T.” sect. 76; Winer (G. B.) “A Compar- 
ative View of the Doctrines and Confessions of the Various Communities of 
Christendom,” p. 86 sq. 


The Doctrine of Man. 141 


45 sq.) (4) To passages which represent the atonement as 
imtversal: (1 John ii. 2; 1 Tim. ii. 63 iv: 10; Heb. ii 9; 
1 Peter iii. 18.) (©) To passages which teach that man’s 
nature is vitiated at birth: (John iii. 6; 1 Cor. vil. 14% Eph. 
fees kom. Vv. fe sq.; 1 Cor. xv. 22; (ch. Ps. li. 7; lviii. 4; 
exam. 2: Isa, xlviii, 8; Prov. xxi. 8; Eccl. ix. 3; Gen: viii. 21; 
1 Sam. xv. 3). (@) To passages which assert the sinfulness 
of all men; (1 Kings viii. 46; Eccl. vii. 20; Rom. iii. 9 sq.) 
But these passages may be supposed to refer to such only 
as have personally and consciously disobeyed the law of God. 
They can be used as confirmatory of better evidence; but they 
would have little force, taken by themselves. (¢) To the 
language of pagan writers. Says Ovid, ‘We always strive 
after what is forbidden, and covet what is denied.” — (See 
Amor. III. El. 4, 17; II. El. 19, 3; Metam. VII. 18 sq., and 
Prov. ix. 17.) And Seneca remarks, that “we have all sinned, 
some more and some less; some of set purpose, others im- 
pelled by chance, or borne away by another’s wickedness. 
Some of us have persisted in good with too little energy, and, 
unwilling, resisting, have lost our innocence. Nor do we sin 
only ; but we shall sin to the end of life.” — (Clementia, c. 7 
rc. 123.) F 

If all men are either morally depraved or sinful at birth, 
it must be in consequence of the apostacy in Eden; for 
Christians agree in teaching that man was originally upright. 
As he came from the hand of his Creator, he was inclined to 
good rather than to evil; but, since the fall, all men are 
inclined to evil. 

The following synopsis will show what have been the views 
entertained by Christians on this point :— 

The Council of Trent, at its fifth session, adopted this 
canon: “If any one shall assert that the transgression of 
Adam injured only himself, and not his posterity; and that he 
lost the holiness and righteousness which -he received from 
God for himself only, and not for us also; or that, stained by 
the sin of disobedience, he transmitted to the whole human 


4 


142 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


race only death and penalties of body, but not also sin, which 
is the death of the soul, —let him be anathema.’’! 

The Augsburg Confession declares that, “since the fall of 
Adam, all men propagated in the natural way are born 
with sin, —that is, without fear of God, without trust in God, 
and with evil desire.” And the Formula of Concord says, 
“ We believe that original sin is not a slight corruption of 
human nature, but one so profound, that it has left nothing 
sound, nothing incorrupt in the body or mind of man, in his 
inward or outward powers.” 

The Confession of Basle (Reformed Church) uses this 
language: “Through Adam’s fall, the entire human race is 
corrupted, and subject to condemnation; our nature has been 
weakened, and affected with such a bias to sin that, unless 
the Spirit of God restores it, man of himself can do nothing 
good.” 

Art. 9, of the Thirty-nine Articles, speaks of “original sin” 
as “the fault or corruption of the nature of every man that 
naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby 
man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is, of 
his own nature, inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth 
always contrary to the spirit; and therefore, in every person 
born into the world, it deserveth God’s wrath.” 

The Westminster Confession, after speaking of the fall of 
our first parents, says, “ They being the root of all mankind, 
the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin 
and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity descend- 
ing from them by ordinary generation. From this original 
corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and 
made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do 
proceed all actual transgressions.” 

The Confessio Remonstrantium (Arminian) says, that “by 
transgression Adam was made through the power of the 
divine threatening guilty of eternal death and manifold misery, 
and was deprived of that primeval happiness which he had 


1 See further statements and explanations in Winer (G. B.) “ A Comparative 
View,” &c., p. 86 sq. 


The Doctrine of Man. 143 


received at creation. But because Adam was the root and 
source of the whole human race, he involved not only himself, 
but also all his posterity who were in his loins, as it were, 
and were to spring from him, by natural generation, in the 
same death and misery,” &c. 

- The Quakers, according to Barclay’s “ Apology,” “confess 
that a seed of sin is transmitted to all men, from Adam, 
although imputed to none until by sinning they actually join 
with it.” 

The Catechismus Racovianus (Socinian) says, “Man is 
exposed to death, because the first man transgressed the plain 
command of God, to which death was threatened as a punish- 
ment; whence also it has come to pass, that he has drawn all 
his posterity with him into the same sentence of death, yet 
only as every one’s own sin is added.” — “ Since the fall of 
Adam was but a single act, it could not have power to deprave 
his own nature, still less that of his posterity; yet we do 
not deny that by the practice of sinning, ass¢duttate peccandi, 
the nature of men has been infected with a certain vice and too 
much inclination to sin,—ad peccandum nimid proclivitate.” 

These citations show the general current of thought and 
belief in respect to the effect of the fall upon the moral con- 
dition of mankind. Believers in Christ have been convinced 
-by the word of God, in addition to their own observation, that 
the spiritual state of all men is evil, and that this evil state is 
a result of the sin of our first parents. 


IV. THE DEGREE OF SIN IN OUR RACE.) 


In respect to this it may be affirmed, — 

1. That no man, except Jesus Christ, has fully obeyed 
the law of God. — See (Matt. xxii. 37-40; James ii. 10; 
1 John iii. 15; iv. 20; Gal. iii. 10.) And this is equivalent to 
saying, that every man who has acted as a moral agent has 
disobeyed that law. 

2. That no unregenerate man has any proper love to God 
(Rom. viii. 7; 1 John iv. 7). Sin is therefore in a// the life; 


1 Wardlaw (R.) “Syst. Theol.” vol. II. p. 119 sq. 


144 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


and the principle of holiness is entirely wanting. Hence 
unrenewed men are said to be “totally depraved”; they have 
not obeyed the law at all. 

3. That selfishness reigns in the hearts of all unrenewed 
men (Phil. ii. 21). On this point, reference may be made to 
what is said above under the fourth definition of sin. | 

4. That hatred to God is present in the hearts of all unre- 
generate men (Rom. vill. 7). It is there, though latent. 
Let the nature of God be seen in a true light, as opposed to 
all self-indulgence, selfsseeking, and self-will, and this enmity 
or hatred will emerge at once into conscious action. 

5. That all men are not equally sinful. — (See Prov. xxix. 1; 
Jer. xiii. 23; Luke xii. 48; John iii. 19; xv. 22))240g eee 
iii. 13; Rom.-ii. 12; iv. 15; v. 13; 1 Cor. xiv. 200(qumunee 
XVili. 3; xix.14; Mark x. 14; Luke xviii. 16; Ezek. xvi. 47-52; 
Matt. x. 15; xi. 22; John xix. 11; 1 Tim. V, /Gpueeee 
20, 21; Amos iii. 2). These passages teach that the sinful- 
ness of men is much greater in some instances than it is in 
others, and especially that it is modified by the knowledge of 
the sinner. 


V. THE IMPUTATION OF SIN; OR THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF 
MEN FOR THEIR SINFULNESS. 

This topic suggests questions which it is very difficult to 
answer; and it may therefore be well to review some of the 
prominent theories in’ respect to it. 

1. Zhe Pelagian Theory.” This theory assumes that man 
can be responsible for nothing but his own voluntary action. 
It denies the hereditary depravity of mankind since the fall. 
“Capaces enim utriusque rei, non pleni nascimur, et ut sine 
virtute, ita sine vitio procreamur, atque ante actionem pro- 
priz voluntatis id solum in homine est quod Deus condidit.” — 
(Aug. De pec. orig. c. 13.) ‘Nemo naturaliter malus est; sed 
quicunque reus est, moribus, non exordiis, accusatur.’’— 


1 See Neander’s “‘ Dogmengeschichte,” I. s. 360 sq.; Hagenbach (K. R.) 
“History of Doctrines,” sects. 110-113; Shedd (W. G. T.) “ History of Christian 
Doctrines,” II., 1V.; Wiggers (G. F.) “ Augustinism and Pelagianism,” p. 59 sq.; 
Ellis’s “ Half-century of the Unitarian Controversy,” p. 56 sq. 


The Doctrine of Man. 145 


(Opus Imp. I. 105, cf. v.56.) It emphasizes “the power of con- 
trary choice,’—the “osszbilitatem utriusque partis.’ And 
it declares that Adam and Christ are set forth in Rom. v. 12 sq. 
(cf. 1 Cor. i. 30; 2 Cor. v. 21) as typical personages merely, 
illustrating the divinely established connection between sin 
and death, righteousness and life. 

This theory is unsatisfactory (2) Because it denies such 
a connection between our sinfulness and the fall of Adam 
as the Scriptures assert (for example, Rom. v. 12, 18, 19). 
(4) Because it denies, on the other hand, such a connection 
between the righteousness of believers and the work of Christ 
as the Scriptures assert (Rom. v. 9, 17, 18, 19; x. 4; I Cor. 
i. 30). (c) Because it makes too little of sin as affecting 
moral character; too little of the moral bias of the soul to 
evil. (d) Because it fails to account for the universality of 
sin in mankind. 

1. Zhe Arminian Theory. The authorities for this theory 
are given below.! The Arminian theory supposes man to be 
responsible for his own voluntary action (or inaction), and, 
strictly speaking, for nothing else. It supposes that, since the 
fall, men are born “without original righteousness,’ and 
morally powerless, needing “new grace,’ but not guilty. 
“Unde fit, ut posteri omnes Adami eadem justitia destituti, 
prorsus inepti et inidonei sint ad vitam zternam consequen- 
dam, aut in gratiam cum deo redeant, mzs¢ deus novd gratia 
sua cos preventat, et vires novas tis restituat ac sufficiat, quibus 
ad cam possint perventre.” —(Apol. Conf. Remonstr. p. 84, b.) 
It supposes that men are made responsible for the right and 
wrong of their conduct by a gracious ability imparted by God. 
“Tt is not, then, until there is redemptively conferred upon 
man wnat we call a graczous ability for the right that man 


1 “Remonstrantia, libellus supplex exhibitus Hollandie et Westfrisiz Ordin- 
ibus,” 1610. Five Articles; “Confessio, seu Declaratio Sententiz Pastorum, qui 
in foederato Belgio Remonstrantes vocantur, super precipuis articulis rel. Chr.” 
1622 (Simon Episcop. Opp. II. 69); Limborch (Phil. a) ‘“‘Theologia Christiana ” 
(Amstel. 1686, 1730); Arminius (Ja.) “Opera Theol.” 1609, 1635; Wesley (J.) 
“Works” see p. 25 supra; Whedon (D.D.) “ Doctrines of Methodism,” Bib. Sac. 
XIX. p. 241 sq. 


146 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


can strictly be responsible for the wrong.” —(Whedon.) And 
it supposes that Adam and Christ are represented as “federal 
heads” of mankind in Rom. v. 12, but only “ conceptually,” 
or by a “legal fiction.” But in reality the case stands thus: 
“Tt is as a depraved being that man becomes an ego; but 
instantly after, in the order of nature, he is met by the pro- 
visions of the atonement. If he is not thereby immediately 
unconditionally justified and regenerated, his death before 
the commission of actual sin would place him out of the 
category of condemnation.” In other words, gracious aid is 
always granted, and must be granted, to render man just'y 
accountable for sin. 

This theory is unsatisfactory (2) Because the Scriptures do 
not found human responsibility on gracious aid, or the work 
of the Spirit. (4) Because they do not teach that this 
influence of the Holy Spirit is given to all men; much less 
do they teach that it is given to all in early life. (© Be- 
cause they do not justify us in calling that “grace” which 
must be imparted by God, to constitute man responsible. 
(dz) Because they teach a doctrine of election which this 
theory repudiates. (e) Because they teach the entire sinful- 
ness and the accountability of Satan, without once suggesting 
the idea of gracious aid, imparted to him for the purpose of 
rendering him justly accountable. The writer, at least, does 
not recollect any passage where such aid is pronounced 
necessary for Satan. 

ui. Zhe Edwardean Theory.’ This theory maintains that 
man is responsible for all his voluntary action (or inaction), 
and that he always has a xatural ability to do right, though 
his inclination to sin leads him to do wrong uniformly. It 
also maintains that Adam and Christ are treated in Rom. v. 


1 See Duffield (G.) “ Doctrines of the New Sch. Presb. Church,” Bib. Sac. XX. 
p- 561 sq.; “The Auburn Declaration,” Presb. Rev. 1876*; Fiske (D. T.) “New 
England Theology,” Bib. Sac. XXII. 477 sq. and 568 sq.; Haven (J.) “Sin as re- 
lated to Human Nature, and to the Divine Purpose,” Bib. Sac. XX. 445 sq. : 

*It is not meant that the New School Presbyterians adopted in all respects 
“The New England Theology,” but that the two may be studied together, as 
kindred ty es of thought. 


The Doctrine of Man. 147 


I2 sq. as sources of inclination to evil and to good; yet it 
denies that men are responsible for any inherited inclination. 
They are only responsible for the action by which they freely 
appropriate and express such an inclination. Hence men are 
born depraved, but not sinful; loaded with misfortune, but 
not with guilt. Their guilt begins with moral action; and 
this, owing to their inherited bias to evil, is always sinful. 

In favor of this theory, it is urged (1) That it does some- 
thing to explain the fact of human responsibility, —a great 
deal, indeed, if its distinction between natural and moral 
ability is correct, and if the former is a sufficient basis for 
responsibility. (2) That it agrees with many representations 
of Scripture as to personal guilt, and especially with the 
accounts of the final judgment (Ezek. xviii. 1-32; Matt. xxv. 
14-46; 2 Cor. v. 10). (3) That it is compatible with the 
Scriptural doctrines of election and the work of the Spirit. 

But it is not wholly satisfactory (2) Because it does not 
agree with the most obvious sense of Eph. ii. 3; 1 Cor. vii. 14; 
Rom. v. 12-19; John iii. 6. For these passages suggest 
that all men are exposed, even from birth, to the just dis- 
pleasure of God. (6) Because it tends to make the salvation 
of all who die in infancy independent of the death of Christ; 
for, if they are simply unfortunate, it is impossible to see why 
Christ should suffer for them. —(See Rom. v. 8 sq.; 2 Cor. v. 
ieee ieb. ix. 22) 26, 28; 1 Peter, ii) 18; 1 John i. 2.) 
(c) Because it fails to satisfy the logical understanding, that 
man has all the power necessary to right action; for the 
admission of moral inability’ seems to render null and void the 
assertion of natural ability. Besides, the difference between 
holding a child to be guilty for actions which flow uniformly 
from a bias to evil, and holding him guilty for that bias, seems 
much greater in theory than in practice. 

Iv. The Placean Theory.” This theory supposes that men 


1 Since azy inability is said to be inconsistent with responsibility, and 
especially if that inability is zhercted. 

2 See Shedd (W. G. T.) “Hist. of Christian Doctrine,” II. p. 158 sq.; Hagen- 
bach (K. R.) “ Hist. of Doctrines,” II. pp. 181, 262; Baird (S. J.) “Elohim Re- 


148 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


are accountable for all the sin which they commit, or desire to 
commit, or which they indorse in others by sympathy of aim 
and spirit. It supposes that all men participate with Adam 
in the corruption of nature induced by the fall. It supposes 
that they are directly charged with this corruption, and 
mediately with the sin which it indorses; and it supposes 
that Adam and Christ are set forth, in Rom. v. 12 sq., as the 
sources, respectively, of sin and death, righteousness and life, 
in mankind. . 

In support of this theory, it is said, (1) That it is in har- 
mony with several statements of Scripture.— (See Luke xi. 
47; 51; Matt. xxiii. 35, 36; Ex. xx. 5, G3 XxINpe gp ee eee 
17, 18; Ezek. xviii. 1-32. Edwards (J.) “ Inquiry concerning 
the Freedom of the Will,” —“ Works” II., p. 482.) (2) That 
it agrees with the working of conscience, which holds every 
one responsible for his moral assent ta evil. “ Evil dwells in 
him, not as a dead inheritance, handed down from Adam, but 
as his own evil to which he consents.” — (Dorner, Hist. of 
Prot. Dheol. 1; p.'272.) 

Yet it is not wholly satisfactory, (2) Because it casts so 
faint a light on the justice of God in the imputation of Adam’s 
sin to adults who do as he did. (4) Because it casts no light 
on the justice of God in bringing into existence a race 
inclined to sin by the fall of Adam. The inherited bias is 
still unexplained, and the imputation of it a riddle or a wrong 
to the natural understanding. — 

v. The Augustinian Theory.’ The defenders of this theory 
agree with those just named, in making every man respon- 
sible for his moral feelings, as well as actions, and, in 
supposing him to be a particeps criminis, whenever he assents 
in heart to a sinful action. 


vealed,” &c., p. 45-6; Schweitzer (A.) “Placeus,” Herzog, Real-Encyklopadie; 
Placzeus (J.) “Opera Omnia,” 1699 and 1702, “Theses Theologice de Statu 
hominis lapsi ante gratiam,” 1640, and “ Disputatio de imputatione primi peccati 
Adami,” 1655. ' 

1 Shedd (W. G. T.) “ Discourses and Essays,” p. 218 sq.; Baird (S. J.) “ The 
Elohim Revealed in the Creation and Redemption of Man”; Hodge (C.) “ Sys- 
tematic Theology,” II. p. 51 sq., and p. 216 sq. 


The Doctrine of Man. ° 149 


They generally accept the ¢raducian theory of the origin of 
human souls, as well as of human bodies. They emphasize 
the oneness of the human race, and approve the language of 
Augustine, saying, “ We were all in that one man [Adam], 
since we were ali that one man who lapsed into sin through 
the woman that was made from him previous to transgres- 
sion. The form in which we were to live as individuals had 
not, indeed, been created and assigned to us, man by man; 
but that seminal nature from which we were to be propagated 
was in existence.” 

Hence they regard Adam and Christ as the sources, 
respectively, of sin and death, righteousness and life. With- 
out rejecting the doctrine of “federal headship,” they make it 
rest upon a real and natural headship, which is of chief 
importance. 

Of this theory it may be remarked, (2) That it was prob- 
ably suggested to the mind of Augustine by the inaccurate 
Latin version of é¢’ in Rom. v. 12; (6) That it does not 
remove the objection which human reason urges against 
holding all men responsible for the first sin of Adam; for it 
does not assert that all human souls were so included in 
Adam’s soul as to act with the latter consciously in that first 
sin; (c) That it lays too little stress upon the distinction 
between nature and will, between an unconscious bias and a 
rational choice; and (¢d) That it breaks down, when applied 
to the connection between the justification of believers and 
the righteousness of Christ; for believers were not in Christ, 
as to the substance of their souls, when he wrought out 
redemption for them. 

vi. The Calvinistic Theory... By this is meant the Old 
School view, fully stated by Turretin, and by the artic.es of 
the Westminster assembly. It asserts the responsibility 


1 Turretin (F.) “Institutio Theologiz Elenctice,’” Vol. I. Loc. 1V. Qu. IX.; 
Hodge (C.) “Systematic Theology,” Vol. II. p. 192 sq.; “ Princeton Essays ” (First 
Series), “Original Sin,” p. 109 sq., and “ The Doctrine of Imputation,” pp. 128- 
217; Wallace (H.) “ Representative Responsibility, a Law of the Divine Pro- 
cedure in Providence and Redemption”; “Westminster Assembly’s Confession 
of Faith,” and “Catechism”; “The Philadelphia Confession of Faith” (Bap.) 


150 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


of every man for his depraved heart and sinful action. It 
supposes that Adam and Christ are set forth in Rom. v. 
12 sq., as federal heads or representatives; the sin of the 
former being imputed to all men directly, and the righteous- 
ness of the latter being imputed directly to all the elect. 

To this theory objections may also be made; for example, 
(a) That it requires us to give a very unusual, if not unex- 
ampled meaning to the word “sinned,” in Rom. vy, 12, that 
is, “ were regarded and treated as responsible for another's 
sin’’; (6) That it makes too little of the real connection 
between Adam and his offspring, Christ and his people. 
— (See John ili.6; 1 Cor. xii. 3); and, (c) That it puts justifi- 
cation before regeneration and faith; while the New Testa- 
ment makes faith a condition of justification, and, therefore, 
prior to it, in the order of nature. 

Something, then, may be said, with apparent justice, against 
every one of these theories. And evidently the connection 
of the race with Adam, and of believers with: Christ, brings 
into the problem of the imputation of sin a great part of the 
difficulty which it offers to the human understanding. Were 
it not for that connection, a tolerably satisfactory solution 
might be reached; but that connection is a fact, whether we 
can ascertain all that it involves or not. 

Looking at this subject, for a moment, in the light of 
human reason and conscience, it may be said, that every man, 
however depraved at birth, or hardened by wicked conduct, is 
a moral agent, and, as such, is accountable to God (a) for 
every voluntary act that is wrong; (b) for the increase of 
inclination to evil which is produced by that act; (c) for the 
inclination to sin which is appropriated by that act; (da) for 
all the evil which may be expected by him to result from that 
act. All this must be admitted by every thoughtful man, 
without regard to the instruction of Scripture. For what an 
amount of sin, then, is every one accountable to whom the 
gospel is preached! Heart-fellowship with sin is sin; and all 
mankind in their unrenewed state are guilty of this radical 
and sin-producing sin. 


The Doctrine of Man. I51 


Many would add to all this, responsibility, (¢) for the whole 
system of moral evil with which the act is seen by him to be 
connected ; and, (f) for the sin of Adam, which is, in princi- 
ple, repeated by every sinful act of his offspring. But it 
would be in many respects better to say, that he is account 
able for the degree of sympathy which he has for the whole 
system of evil, and for the disobedience of Adam. If that 
sympathy is full, whether it be expressed by word or deed 
or thought, if the whole force of his being is arrayed against 
heaven, and on the side of hell, it is difficult to limit his 
responsibility. 

A voluntary act, as used in this statement, is any act which 
is performed by a moral being in his ordinary condition, — 
any act, or course of action, which reveals his moral char- 
acter. 

But of course it is our duty to take the evidence of 
Scripture, as well as that of reason; and the evidence of 
Scripture is formidably strong in favor of the view, that both 
' Adam and Christ acted for others; that, in some true sense, 
all men suffer the penal consequences of the sin in Eden, 
being’ in full fellowship with it, and that all who are in moral 
union with Christ will enjoy the full benefit of his death. 

Yet the Scriptures recognize a difference between personal 
sin and inherited sinfulness, as appears in their accounts of 
the final judgment. 

vi. PENALTY oF sIN. This topic requires us to consider 
(1) The proper idea of penalty; (2) The fact of penalty for 
sin ; and (3) What that penalty is. 

(1) The first point need not detain us long; for without 
doubt the primary and leading sense of penalty is, suffering 
by pain or loss inflicted by the proper authority upon wrong- 
doers for their wrong-doing. It looks to the past, not to the 
future; its primary aim is retribution, not reformation. It 
rests on the postulate, that government ought to make a 
distinction between crime and innocence, that evil-doers 
ought not to receive the same treatment as those who do 
well; and this postulate will be accepted by all who admit 


152 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


the distinction between right and wrong, by all who admit 
that men are in fact moral beings. 

(2) The second point may also be treated with brevity ; 
for although many exclude punishment, properly so-called, 
from the moral government of God, they do ths against the 
plain teaching of the Scriptures, and have, therefore, been 
answered in Part II., which proves that teaching to be infal- 
lible. If any one urges that the Scriptures reveal the natural 
consequences of sin, and not its penalty, we reply, (2) That 
their language will not admit of such an interpretation (Matt. 
XXV. 30, 41, 46; 2 Thess. i. 8); and (6) That the natural 
consequences of sin are due to a constitution given to man 
by his Maker. Hence the working of that constitution 
may well be regarded as retributive, — carrying into effect the 
just judgment of God." . 

(3) The third point must be treated with special care; and 
for two reasons: first, because-it is one of no little difficulty 
in itself; and secondly, because the belief of Christians in 
respect to it is becoming divided. Some suppose that the 
penalty of sin is bodily death; some, that it is extinction of 
conscious being; some, that it is spiritual death; and some, 
that it is both spiritual and bodily death. Especially active 
are those who teach that extinction of conscious being is 
the divinely-prescribed penalty of sin. We must, therefore, 
spare no pains in trying to ascertain the truth on this point, 
nor ought we to be surprised if it occupies our ¢ttention for 
a considerable time; for the data to be examined are scat- 
tered here and there, through the whole Bible, and may be 
divided into three parts: —(a) The meaning and use of the 
terms employed in foretelling the penalty of sin; (6) The inti- 
mations as to the time when the penalty takes effect; and 
(c) The account of it, as suffered by those who have passed 
beyond hope. 

- In studying this subject, three facts ought to be borne con- 
stantly in mind, namely: That the style of the sacred writers is 
popular, and very often figurative ; that the revelation of reli- 


1 Butler (J.) “Analogy,” Part I. ch. 2d. 


The Doctrine of Man. 153 


gious truth made by them is progressive in clearness and ful- 
ness, from first to last; and that comparatively slight attention 
is given to the doctrine of another life in the Old Testament. 

In the discussion which follows, particular reference is had 
to the view, so zealously advocated by many,’ that extinction 
of conscious being is the penalty of sin. 

I. Lhe meaning and use of the principal terms employed by 
the sacred writers in foretelling the punishment of stn. 

The terms are Death, Destruction or Perdition, Lake of 
Fire, Outer Darkness, Eternal Punishment, and some others 
of similar import. 

(1) The most important of them all is “DEATH”; and 
therefore it deserves the most careful study. 

What then is death? The one comprehensive answer to 
this question is this: Zhe opposite or negative of life. 

And therefore it is necessary to inquire, What is life? 
And to answer: A great mystery doubtless, yet dy xo means 
the same as existence. Life is more than existence;.it is a 
particular kind of existence, — existence f/ws a mysterious 
force, which gives a higher form and a greater value to exist- 
ence. This, if no more, may be premised before looking at 
the use of terms in the Bible. 

Starting with this general view of the meaning and relation 
of the words “life” and “death,” we turn to the Scriptures, and 
observe the following facts :* — 

I. TLhat they recognize an original and important difference 


1 Dobney (HI. H.) “The Scripture Doctrine of Future Punishment”; Whately 
(R.) “A View of the Scripture Revelation concerning a Future State” — not very 
decided; Storrs (G.) ‘‘ Man’s Destiny,” “The True Source of Life,” “The Rich 
Man and Lazarus”; Hudson (C. F.) “ Debt and Grace”; Constable (1I.) “ Du- 
ration and Nature of Future Punishment.” 

2 Hovey (A) “State of the Impenitent Dead; ” Thompson (J. P.) “Love and 
Penalty;” Bartlett (S. C.) “ Life and Death Eternal; a Refutation of the Theory 
of Annihilation;” Stuart (M.) “Exegetical Essays on Several Words relating 
to Future Punishment;” Dexter (H. M.) “‘The Verdict of Reason upon the” 
Question of the Future Punishment of those who die Impenitent;’’ New Eng- 
lander for 1871, p. 659 sq., ““The Theory of the Extinction of the Wicked;” 
Krabbe (O.) “Die Lehre von der Siinde und vom Tode in ihrer Beziehung zu 
einander und zu der Auferstehung Christi;” Mead (C. M.) “The Soul Here and 
Hereafter,” &c.,— excellent. 


154 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


between the body of man and his spirit. (Eccl. xii. 7; Gen 
ii. 7 (cf. i. 26); Num. xvi. 22; xxvii. 16; Heb sameeren 
mae sa Cor, ol. see 5 Agts vil. 59; Gen. xxxv. 18; Ezek. 
XViil. 4; Rom. vill. 16; 2-Cor. v. 1; James igen 

2. That this original difference between the body of man 
and his spirit underlies a difference of relation to endless 
existence (Gen. ili. 22, 23, compared with 1 Cor. xv. 43-47, 
and the passages cited above). Accordingly, the body of 
man, as such, was not, even before the fall, adapted to endless 
existence; but his spirit was. His body, unless changed from 
an earthly to a spiritual one, must return to dust; but his 
soul, in its own proper nature, was a single, indissoluble 
power, adapted to endless being. This seems to bea natural 
conclusion, from the language of Scripture and from the 
testimony of consciousness. 

Yet, as we shal] presently see, the conscious existence of 
the soul is by no means its life; for the latter depends upon 
union with God: it is a higher condition of being, due to 
rational fellowship with the Most High. As the body with- 
out the spirit is dead (James ii. 26), so the spirit without God 
is dead. The connection between the soul and God, though 
different from that between the body and the soul, is no, less 
essential and life-producing. 

“Mors igitur anime fit,’ says Augustine, “cum eam 
deserit Deus, sicut corporis, cum id deserit anima... . 
vivit itaque anima ex Deo, cum vivit bene; non enim potest 
bene vivere, nisi Deo in se operante quod bonum est.” — 
“De Civ. Dei,” xiii. c. 2. See also xi. c. 17, onetime 
esset vitium recedere a Deo, nisi nature, cujus id vitium est, 
potius competeret essecum Deo. Quapropter etiam voluntas 
mala grande testimonium est bonz nature. To test the 
correctness of this language we must observe with care the 
use of the terms “life” and death” in the Semptures! 
They are frequently used of the spirit, and signify respec- 
tively, — 

A. Union with God, and separation from him. This is a 
natural use of the terms; for man as a spiritual being is not 


The Doctrine of Man. 155 


self-sufficient, but dependent, needing fellowship; and his 
truest life is realized in communion with God. But union 
with God is secured by faith in Christ; and separation from 
God, by unbelief. Bearing this fact in mind, the following 
passages will be seen to justify our definition, namely :— 

(1) John vi. 47, 48, 54, 56, 63; xi. 25, 26 (cf. John iii. 16; 
iv. 14; Rom. v. 1). From these selections, to go no further, 
it appears that men who have Christian faith have a state of 
being which has been originated by the Holy Spirit, with the 
use of Christian truth, and is called by the Saviour life, or 
eternal life. The possession of true faith proves the existence 
of this life, even if the one is not identical with the other; 
and, by virtue of this life, the believer is in Christ and Christ 
in him. They hold converse with each other, having the 
same thoughts, wishes, and aims. But this may be made a 
separate point. 

(2) John xv. 2 sq.; Eph. i. 1; 1 John v. 20 (cf. Rom. 
Vili. 6-11). These are but specimens of a large class of 
texts, which represent believers as being zz Christ. And this 
their relation to him is conceived of many times as more 
than legal and protective, as vital also, through his indwelling 
spirit. Yet the vitality in question is plainly one of moral 
disposition, — of thinking and feeling in unison with Christ; it 
is spiritual life, the normal, unperverted, unimpeded, healthful 
action of a rational soul, uplifted by the thoughts of Christ 
communicated to it. 

(3) John i. 4,9; xv. I sq; xvii. 2, 3; Gal. v. 22. When 
we observe (a) that the life was the light of men, (4) that 
the eternal life of men consists in knowing the true God and 
Jesus Christ, (c) that by vital union with Christ men bear 
Christian fruit, and (Z) that this fruit is love, joy, peace, &c., 
we are ready to conclude that the life given to men, in Christ 
and by Christ, is a normal state of the soul, revealing itself 
in holy action, —a state and action which will never cease 
(John xi. 25, 26). 

(4) John v. 24; iii. 6; 1 John iii. 14, a.; Eph. v. 14; 
Titus iii. 5; 1 Peter i. 3, 23 (cf. Rom. vi. 2-14; vii. 4-6; 


156 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


viii. 6, 7, 10, 11; Eph. ii. 1, §, 6, 10; iv. 19) (Gales 
Col. i. 21, 22; 1 Tim. v. 6). In these passages, the state of 
men after regeneration is contrasted with their state before 
it, —the one being called life, and the other death. But the 
difference between these two states is one of moral disposi- 
tion and action. In the one case, there is fellowship with 
God; in the other, there is not. This is the difference, as 
revealed by experience ; and all the accounts of regeneration, 
pardon, adoption, and union with Christ, found in the Bible, 
rest on this view. . 

It is plain that the selections in our parenthesis refer to the 
same conditions of being as are treated in the leading texts. 
But in the passages thus indicated, the unregenerate are 
described as those who are alive in sin, and subject to sin; 
alive to the flesh, and obedient to its lusts; alive to the law, 
but enemies to God, or dead to him; accomplishing the wishes 
of the flesh and of the mind, but darkened in the understand- 
ing, and alienated from the life of God, by reason of ignorance 
and hardness of heart: while the regenerate are described 
as those who have died to sin and to the law, and been made 
alive in Christ to God,—the servants of righteousness, a 
product of God’s hand, created in Christ Jesus for good 
works, and destined to be made holy and spotless and blame- 
less before him. 

All this refers, beyond a doubt, to moral character and 
condition. Fellowship with God in Christ is life; alienation 
of heart from God is death. 

B. Spiritual blessedness and woe. The idea of life 
includes that of happiness. It is only when life is disturbed, 
its laws violated, that suffering comes in. If the experience 
of man does not comport with this idea, he is but too con- 
scious that his life is a failure by reason of sin. Hence, in 
spite of experience, he includes high spiritual enjoyment in 
his conception of human life, and applies this term to a 
blessed existence, by way of distinguishing it from a miserable 
one. From this point of view, death is misery, — the opposite 
of true life, or mere existence, — the negative of true life. — 
(See 1 Thess. iii. 8; Rom. vii. 9; viii. 6.) 


The Doctrine of Man. 157 


Again, true life implies fellowship with God; and fellow- 
ship with God is purest enjoyment. Well and fervidly does 
Secrétan say that, “if feeling is but the echo of the depths 
within, if happiness is but the consciousness of power, har- 
mony, and truth, as wretchedness is that of emptiness, 
discord, and falsehood, it is impossible that the love of God, 
the perfection of goodness, the plenitude of our being, should 
not also be fulness of happiness. Thus the soul tnat loves 
God is rich, free, happy; she is satisfied, moreover, and feels 
no further want.” —(See Ps. xvi. 11; xlii. 1-5 ; Eph. iii. 19; 
1 Peter i. 8.) Hence, loss of communion with God is a loss 
of blessedness ; nay, as conceived of by the sacred writers, it 
is more than this, —it is the opposite of true life. The spirit 
of man cannot leave the realm of happiness, without entering 
that of woe.—(See 1 Thess. iii. 7, 8; Rev. ii. 11; xx. 6, 14; 
xxi. 8 (cf. Rev. xx. 10; xiv. 10, 11); Luke xvi. 23 sq.; Matt. 
XXxv. 41, 46.) 

But against the conclusion now reached, several objections 
are pressed by those who believe in the annihilation of the 
wicked. For example: — 

1. That death properly signifies extinction of being. When 
it is predicated of a person, it denotes the end of his personal 
existence. When it is predicated of an animal, it denotes the 
end of its animal existence. And, when it is predicated of a 
plant, it denotes the end of its existence as a plant. 

This is not wholly correct, as an account of the use of 
language among men; for, according to that use, a dead tree 
may be still in existence, and so may a dead body, or a dead 
spirit. Existence, in a state of death, is different from exist- 
ence in a state of life; but it is existence still. The state or 
condition of being, called life, is terminated by death; and 
this is all. 

2. That Adam must have understood death to be extinction 
of being; and his view of the evil threatened for disobedience 
must have been correct. Neither of these assertions can be 
sustained by evidence; for the Word of God gives no hint 
of the explanations which Jehovah doubtless made to Adam 


158 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


of the threatening in question, —no hint of the meaning which 
Adam found in it. The record is very brief, giving, we 
suspect, the substance of much instruction and warning in a 
single clause. 

Besides, we have no reason to suppose that Adam, any 
more than his descendants, had an exact or adequate view 
beforehand of the penalty of sin. The justice of punishment 
does not depend on its being known by the transgressor, 
before he disobeys the law. 

3. That the Scripture accounts of the dead prove death to 
be extinction of being. — (See, for example, Ps. vi. 6; xxx. 10; 
IxXxxvili. II—13; cxv. 17; Eccl. ix 10; Isa. xxxwieeee 
(cf. Jer. li. 57; 1 Thess. iv. 13 sq). These passages do cer- 
tainly, at first sight, favor the theory of extinction of being at 
death. But it should be recollected, in studying them, 
(2) That the Bible is a progressive revelation. This is true 
of its treatment of almost every doctrine, and especially of 
the doctrines of the trinity and the future life; “first the 
blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear.” Hence, 
we must look to the New Testament, rather than to the Old, 
for the fullest account of the state after death. (0) Poetry 
should be interpreted by prose, rather than prose by poetry; 
for poetry makes more frequent use of phenomenal and 
hyperbolical language than does prose. It is, therefore, more 
likely to seize upon the visible aspects of death, and describe 
it by its effects on the body. (c) The sacred writers appear 
to speak oftentimes of death with reference to the change 
which it makes on one’s relations to the present world. By 
it, the plans, enterprises, duties, and joys of time are brought 
to nought forever. — (See Eccl. ix. 10; Ps. exlvi. 4; Job vii. 
7-10.) (d) The views of uninspired men are sometimes given 
on this point; and of course their views may be incorrect. 
Hezekiah was, in all likelihood, uninspired when he prayed; 
and, though the preacher was inspired when he wrote, he has 
put on record many of the thoughts which he had when 
uninspired: we cannot, therefore, rely upon the testimony of 
either as conclusive. — (See, for example, Isa. xxxviii. 18, 19; 
Eccl. ix, 10; Job x, 30—22); xvi, 125° xvil} ¥,) 


The Doctrine of Man. 159 


(2.) Another term to be considered is “DESTRUCTION,” or 
“perdition.” The Greek noun éadiew is used in twenty 
passages of the New Testament; and the corresponding verb 
is found in more than a hundred. They often denote the 
utter ruin of an object, and often the entire severance of its 
(normal) relation to another.— (See Matt. xxvi. 8; Mark 
Riva. Acts vill, 20; Matt. ix. 17; x 6, 42; xv. 24; Mark 
ear eiike xin hls Xi. 33° xv 4,6, 8, 0, 17, 24, 32; also 
mio) }OLN! Vi. 30; xX. 283 xvil. 12; xvili, 9; 2 Peter ii. 6; 
2 John, 8 (cf. 11). But if the verb is often used to denote 
sundered relations, in consequence of which one person or 
object is worthless to another; if it points to severed relations, 
and so implies great evil, but not extermination of being, this 
may well be its meaning, when selected to express the penalty 
of sin. Besides, it will be observed, that perishing or destruc- 
tion is affirmed of prophets and good men, as well as of the 
Wicked (Luke xX1.514 xiii. 33 (cf. Isa. lvii. 1). And, there- 
fore, it cannot be supposed to denote, uniformly, extinction 
of being, even if it may, in some instances, denote this. 

(3.) Another expression to be examined, is the “LAKE OF 
FIRE,’ and its equivalents.—(See Matt. v. 22, 29, 30; x. 28; 
mile SO, Xvill, , ©; Xxill. 33; xxv. 41; Mark ix. 43-48; 
PevastO) 14) 05; xxi. 8 (of. Luke xw. 23, 24). It will: be 
noted, that the expressions, “eternal fire,” “furnace of fire,” 
“lake of fire,” “fire that is never quenched,” “Gehenna of 
fire, and “Gehenna,” appear to be used by Christ as equiva- 
lent terms. It will also be observed, that in ail these pas- 
sages, men themselves, or wicked beings, are spoken of 
directly as being in the fire referred to. It will be still 
further remarked, that they are not said, unless it be in a 
single instance, to be destroyed by the fire. And, iastly, it 
will be observed, that they are generally represented as in a 
state of great suffering. The fire is conceived of as an 
unfailing source of pain, not as putting an end to conscious 
being; and this prevailing view of the office of the fire in 
question must naturally determine the sense of the word 
“destroy,” in Matt. x. 28; especially, when we compare Mark 
i. 24, with v. 7. 


” 


160 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


(4) Another expression employed by the sacred writers is 
“TORMENT” or ‘PUNISHMENT.’’— (See Matt. xxv. 46; xviii. 
34, 35 (cf. viii. 29; Mark v. 7). The word x6dao occurs 
in but one other passage of the New Testament, namely, 
I John iv. 18; and the verb xoi@%w, from which it is derived, 
occurs in but three places at most; (namely, Acts iv. 21, 
2 Peter ii. 9, and perhaps 2 Peter ii. 4.) The biblical use of 
the words, therefore, shows that they refer to punishment in 
the form of conscious suffering ; yet it is sufficient to know 
that, when applied to sinful beings, they signify punishment. 
The word ‘tormentors,” points also to conscious and great 
suffering ; and the bearing of the passages cited upon the 
nature of the penalty of sin cannot be doubted. It will be 
observed in this case, also, that the wrong-doers are referred 
to directly as men, or evil angels, and not under the figure 
of an evil tree, or of any other inflammable object. — 

(5) Still another expression is used to shadow forth the 
doom of the lost, namely, ‘‘ The outer darkness.” — (See Matt. 
Vill. 12; xxil. 13 (cf. xxiv. 51); xxv. II, 12, 3O0(Gigaueme 
Rev. xxii. 15.) Expulsion from the presence of Christ into - 
the outer darkness, where there is wailing and gnashing of 
teeth, can be said to describe no other doom than one of felt 
misery; and it is plainly a misery in which the ungodly 
now suffer, though it will not reach its culmination till the 
last day. It is obvious, likewise, that loss of good, or as 
Turretin amplifies the thought, scparatio a Deo et Christo, 
privatio lucis, gaudit, gloria, felicitatis, is supposed to be a 
principal part of the punishment suffered by the lost, whether 
here or hereafter. 

Besides these, a few other expressions are found in the 
Bible which are thought to define the penalty of sin, as 
“extinction of being.” 

(6) The wicked are to be “consumed” or “devoured,” 
&c., (for example Isa. i. 28; Ps. xxxviil. 20; Hebe eg 
In regard to the first two of these passages, and to many 
more of a similar tenor in the Old Testament, it may be said, 
(a) That they probably refer to merely temporal calamities. 


The Doctrine of Man, 161 


(6) That the language is not to be pressed as literal, even 
with reference to temporal evil (cf. Gen. xxxi. 40; Ps. xxxi. 
meeulvexexix, Yr 5 xix, TO; Jet xiv: 12; Hab! 1:14; Gal. 
v. 15; Mark xii. 40). And, in regard to the last passage, it 
may be said, that it is manifestly a strong figurative expres- 
sion, and settles nothing as to the precise nature of the 
penalty of sin. 

(7) The wicked are to be “ burned up,” or the like. — (See 
Bemed 10; xcvii. 3; Mal. iv. 1, 3, Eng: ver.: (iii, 19, 21, in 
iew.:) Matt. iii. 12; xiii. 407 John xv. 6; Heb. vi. 8; x. 27; 
xii. 29; Rev. xx. 9. But with these passages should be 
compared, Ps. cii. 4 (cf. Job xxx. 30); 1 Kings vili. 51 (cf. 
Wemeriv20, Jer, Xi. 4); Ezek. xxii. 19-22 (cf. r Peter i, 7; 
iemereaeor. in 15); Num. xxi. 28; Lam. iv. 11.)” Itiis 
evident from a careful study of the passages cited, not to 
mention others of a similar character, (2) That the words 
“burn” and ‘burn up,” are often used, in a figurative sense, 
to describe the effect of God’s wrath upon sinners. Whether 
the original words should be translated “burn,” or “burn 
up,’ depends upon the context, and especially upon the object 
with which sinners are compared. If they are likened to 
chaff, or wood, the original terms may be rendered, “to burn 
up;” but if to a metallic substance, they must be rendered 
“to burn,” —for the substance is only melted, not dissolved. 
(6) These figurative expressions are often used to denote 
vengeance inflicted on those who still exist; and, in such 
cases, it cannot signify extinction of being. (¢) The epithets 
used in connection with these words, or with the word “fire,” 
denote in some instances Jong-continued or eternal burning; 
hence they point to protracted suffering, rather than to 
sudden extinction of being. We do not, therefore, find in the 
use of these figurative terms any valid objection to our view 
of the penalty of sin. 

(8) The wicked are to be “cut off.’’ — (See Ps. xxxiv. 17; 
XXXVil. 9, 22, 28. But compare Isa. liii. 8; Dan. ix. 26; Job 
vi. 9; Ps. lxxxviil. 17; Matt. xxiv. 50, 51.) The words “cut 
off’ appear to reter in almost all these passages .o natural 


162 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


death ; and it seems to us very hasty to infer from them the 
extinction of the soul a/ong with the death of the body. 

(9) The wicked are to “be brought to nought,” &c. 
Such texts as the following are referred to: Ps, xxxvii. 10, 
36; Job vii. 21 ; xx, 8; viii. 22; Obad. 16; Isao 
Jer. x. 24. But with these should be compared a few others 
(for example, Isa. xl..17; Ps. xxxix. 5; 1 Cor ViI@iiimeeee 
2 Cor. xii. 11; Gal. vi. 3; Acts v. 36; Mark aay 
be observed, that the former passages seem to speak of 
temporal judgments, and also that the same form of speech is 
used of the righteous which is applied to the wicked. 
Besides, it must be borne in mind, that the language of 
Scripture is very often figurative, and even hyperbolical,— 
indeed, through and through popular instead of scientific. 

(10) The wicked, or their names, are to “be blotted out.” 
And these passages are quoted: Ps. Ixix. 28 (cf. Ex. xxxii. 
32); Rev. iii. 5. The figure is that of a record-book, contain- 
ing the names of persons entitled to certain blessings; but the 
blotting out of the names deprives the persons represented 
by them of all title to the blessings in question. 

Having ascertained that the terms “life” and “death” are 
often used by the sacred writers to denote, on the one hand, 
the union of the human spirit with God, and; on the other, 
its separation from him, as also to denote its blessedness and 
its woe, and that other expressions employed to indicate the 
penalty of sin confirm rather than confute this explanation of 
death, we are now prepared to consider : — 

1. The intimations of Scripture as to the time when the 
penalty of sin begins to take effect. «For, if it begins to take 
effect in this world, it must be mainly, if not exclusively, 
separation of soul from God, with the consequent misery. 
The term “death” may signify this; and the circumstances of 
the case forbid any other meaning. That the penalty of sin 
begins to teke effect in the present world, may be inferred, — 

(1) From the language of God to Adam before the fall 
That language was very explicit. Gen. ii. 17: “In the day of 
thy eating ot it, thou shait surely die.” The obvious and the 


The Doctrine of Man. 163 


only tenable meaning of these words is, that the death of 
Adam should follow at once his eating of the forbidden fruit ; 
and there is nothing in the narrative of the fall. which 
warrants any other interpretation of them, or authorizes us 
to say, that God in his mercy postponed the execution of the 
threatened penalty.’ 

’ Besides, we learn that Adam and Eve hid themselves away 
from the presence of God, thus relinquishing their fellowship 
with him; and, that he, in turn, banished them from the 
garden, and so, as it were, from converse with himself. 
Some have concluded from his words, as recorded in Gen. 
iii. 19, that physical death was the punishment provided for 
disobedience, and that it was postponed a long time in the 
case of our first parents; but the language of that passage 
does not show that physical death was even a part, much less 
that it was the chief part, or the whole, of the penalty of sin. 
We conclude, then, that Adam and Eve began to suffer the 
punishment of sin immediately after the fall; and, if so, that 
their offspring, born in their likeness, suffer it also, to some 
extent, in the present state. 

' “To some extent,” we say; for as the life of the soul, con- 
sisting in its union with God and consequent peace, begins 
here with regeneration, but culminates hereafter in glory; so 
does the death of the soul, consisting in its separation from 
God and consequent woe, begin here with sin, but culminate 
hereafter in despair. This may be inferred,— 

(2) From the language of Fohn the Bapizst, eed im 
the Fourth Gospel, iii. 36: “The wrath of God abideth on him.” 
{Compare John iii. 18; Eph. ii. 3; Rom. i. 18; Isa. lix. 2.) 
Meyer supposes that the word “wrath” does not here mean 
punishment, but rather God’s holy indignation. His view is 
not, however, correct ; for the wrath spoken of is represented 
as being and abiding «fon — éai— the unbeliever; it is wrath 
passing over upon its obicct in just punishment, — being, 
therefore, a foretaste of “the wrath to come.” And the 


1 See “State of the Impenitent Dead,” 5. 39 34. 


164, Manual of Systematic Theology. 


reason why the wrath to come is referred to so much oftenet 
than the wrath now revealed is because the former is so 
much greater and more enduring than the latter; even as, 
for the same reason, the future reward of Christians is 
spoken of far oftener than their present reward. Yet they 
receive a hundred-fold of good here. 

(3) From the frequent designation of the present state of 
unbelievers by the term ‘death.’ For the mere fact that this 
term, chosen by the Most High to denote the penalty of sin, 
is applied to unrenewed men in this life, supposes them to be 
suffering that penalty. Death is the penalty of sin. Sinners 
are dead even here; hence they are bearing, in some measure, 
the penalty of sin. The onus probandi rests clearly upon 
those who deny our statement. 

(4) From the different language used by the sacred writers 
in describing the present sufferings of believers and those of 
unbelievers. (Compare Rom. viii. 28 sq., and Heb, xii. § sq., 
with Rom. i. 18sq.) In the one case, suffering is reformatory, 
with an aspect of retribution; in the other, it is retribution, 
with a glance towards reformation. 

(5) From the sufferings which are connected with natural 
death in this world. The fear and sting of bodily death are 
not taken from it for unbelievers; and, if such death is 
included in the penalty of sin, that penalty is suffered in part 
here. 

(6) From the action of conscience, enlightened by the Word 
of God. Men who read the Scriptures are wont to believe 
that, by the action of our moral nature and of his providence, 
God begins to punish the wicked in this life, and sometimes 
makes that punishment very awful and monitory.’ 

(7) From the language of Christ and of Peter concerning 
the ungodly in Hades. Luke xvi. 23; 2 Peter ii. 9. For, if 
the punishment of unrenewed men begins before the last 
judgment, why should it not begin in the present world? 


+ Says Augustine : Si nunquam in presenti judicaret, non esse crederetur. Si 
omnia in presenti judicaret, nihil judicio reservaret,” cf. Butler (J.) “Analogy,” 
Part I. ch. 2d profe “um. 


The Doctrine of Man. 165 


Is it not reasonable to believe that its witness to the character 
of God must be as useful here as there? 

We are therefore satisfied that the primary and chief 
penalty of sin consists in a separation of the soul from God, 
and the misery consequent thereon, and that it begins in the 
present state. 

The correctness of our view of the penalty of sin may be 
inferred : — 

wi. rom the Scriptural accounts of it, as suffered by the 
lost in a future state. These are regarded by some as afford- 
ing, on the whole, the clearest evidence in respect to the 
nature of death,—the penalty of sin. Perhaps.they do; but 
this is by no means certain: yet they certainly deserve most 
serious consideration. And we observe, therefore, that im- 
penitent men are represented :— 

(1) As being, immediately after death, in a state of restraint 
meesayerine, (Luke xvi. 23; 24, 25, 28; t Peter iii. 19; 
@ Peter ii. 4, 9; Matt. v. 25 (cf. Matt. viii. 29). Restraint 
implies a power of action in those restrained; and suffering, 
a state of consciousness. If the spirits of bad men are ren- 
dered impotent and unconscious by death, so likewise are 
their bodies; why, then, are not the latter, as well as the 
former, said to be in prison, or under guard (éy gviaxij, 1 Peter 
ili. 19)? The discourse of Christ in Luke, is quite as much 
to the point in proving the conscious existence of the wicked 
after death, if it be considered a parable, as it is when inter- 
nreted as a representative instance of God’s dealings with 
men; and the language of Peter (2 Epistle ii. 4, 9,) clearly 
teaches that ungodly men, as well as fallen angels, are kept 
in a state of punishment until the last day. These passages 
seem to us very conclusive. 

(2) <As going away from the final judgment tnto everlasting 
punishment (Matt. xxv. 46).’ 

(3.) As being, after the judgment, tn “ Gehenna,’ or the 
“lake of fire.” 

From our study of the subject, thus far, we have learned 


Compare the passages cited after (1), (4). 2 Compare passages after (1), (3.) 


166 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


that “death,” when predicated of the soul, signifies its separa. 
tion from God, and consequent misery; and in these we 
discover the chief penalty for sin. But having ascertained 
that the penalty of sin, in its highest form, is spiritual death, 
we proceed with less confidence to say, that 2¢ zs also death 
of body, or natural death. And, by this, we mean a separation 
of body from spirit, reducing the former to its essential prop- 
erties. In support of this statement, we appeal to the follow- 
ing facts: (1) Bodily death is fairly comprehended in the 
meaning of the term “death.” (2) It is due to the presence 
of sin in our race. (3) It seems to have been symbolized by 
the Jewish sacrifices. (4) It was an indispensable part of 
Christ's suffering. (Matt. xvi. 21; Rom. ili. 24, 25; Heb. 
X. 10; xiii. 12 (cf. ix. 22); 1 Peter ii. 24.) (5) It seems tobe 
referred to inclusively in a few passages which speak of the 
penalty of sin (for example, Rom. v. 13, 14; 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22, 
(cf. Gen. ii. 17). 

But it is objected to this view, (1) That Adam and Eve did 
not suffer natural death on the day of their transgression. 
We reply that they suffered one form of death, and the most 
dreadful one; hence, the threatening was fulfilled. For it is 
not necessary to suppose that the threatening referred to 
every subordinate form of the penalty annexed, in the purpose 
of God, to disobedience. (2) The wicked who are alive at 
the coming of Christ will not suffer natural death. This 
is not certain; possibly they will. A painful dissolytion 
may be included in the change of their bodies. (3) The 
righteous, whose sins have been forgiven, suffer bodily death. 
We reply that a curse may be changed into a blessing 
(cf. Rom. vii. 24). 

It must now be added, that spiritual death is an evil naturally 
permanent, but culminating in endless separation from God 
hereafter, and so in endless misery. Natural death, on the 
other hand, is a transitory evil, hardly worth a in 
comparison with spiritual. 

Finally, it may be remarked, before leaving the subject in 
hand, that the theory that the penalty of sin unforgiven is 


The Doctrine of Man. 167 


extinction of being is liable to grave objections, besides those 
suggested by the previous discussion. For (1) /¢ makes the 
punishment of the most wicked the lightest, instead of the 
severest. For the penalty is loss of conscious being; and 
such being is least valuable to the most depraved. But 
conscience and the Word of God both assure us that the 
worst men deserve the greatest punishment, and will receive 
it. — (See Luke xii. 47, 48 and the other passages quoted on 
p. 144, 5). 

But we may go a step further, and say, (2) That it makes 
the punishment of sin unforgiven a good, instead of an evil; 
an act of grace, rather than of judgment. For extinction of 
being is not supposed, by those who believe it the proper 
penalty of sin, to be an evil to the wicked; it is rather a 
welcome relief from a life of remorse and despair, which is far 
worse than no existence at all. Says Socrates in the Phzedo: 
“Tf death had only been the end of all, the wicked would have 
had a good bargain in dying; for they would have been 
happily quit, not only of their body, but of their own evil 
together with their souls.” —Jowvitt L., p. 437. 

It seems to us, therefore, necessary to adhere to the expla- 
nation which we have given of death,—the penalty of sin. 
This penalty is primarily and chiefly separation of soul from 
God, with the consequent misery; and secondarily, separation 
of the body from the soul. 

Remark. (a) The penalty of sin has been thought to com- 
prise two elements; namely, a loss of good, and a sense of 
evil, — poena damni et peena doloris, or privatio bonorum et 
sensus malorum ; and this analysis is evidently correct. The 
latter element is, without doubt, most dreaded by the sin- 
ful, but the former by the holy. 

Remark. (6) Some look upon the penalty of sin as a posi- 
tive infliction from without; others, as a natural consequence 
of wrong-doing. As to the poena damni, we may say that, 
Given a moral nature made for the worship of God and for 
communion with him, sin will bring its own punishment, 
inflicting the greatest possible loss on that nature, —a loss 


168 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


beginning in time, and continuing forever. And as to the 
poena doloris, it may come from within, through the action of 
the spiritual nature itself, or from within and from without, 
through the action of all the susceptibilities of the sinner’s 
being, with external circumstances adjusted to his deserts. 

It is easy to see that remorse for past sin must unite with 
a conviction of having forfeited and lost forever great good 
in filling the soul with woe. To the former Cicero, pro Roscio 
(67), refers in these words: “Sua quemque fraus, et suus 
terror maxime vexat : suum quemque scelus agitat, amentiaque 
afficit : suze malze cogitationes conscientiaeque animi terrent.”’ ? 


VII. RESULTS OF SIN. 


All the consequences of sin which are not to be regarded as 
penal may be considered under this head. But theologians 
differ from one another as to what should be reckoned among 
the penal consequences, and what among the non-penal con- 
sequences of sin. 

For example, the hardness and sterility of the ground may 
be looked upon as an adaptation of the world to a race of 
sinful beings, —God foreseeing the apostacy of men, and 
providing for them a “fit abode” for their period of trial as 
. “prisoners of hope.” 

Or the world may have been subjected to changes at the 
time of the apostacy in Eden, which made it bring forth 
thorns and briers. The former view is perhaps more phil- 
osophical than the latter. 

But, whatever may be true as to the time and process of 
preparing the earth for a sinful race, there are good reasons 
for believing that it has been thus prepared, and that it will 
be greatly changed, if it is ever made the home of holy beings. 
(2 Peter iii. 13; Rev. xxi. 1 sq.; Acts ili, 21; Matt. xix. 28; 
Heb. i. 11, 12; Rom. viii. 22-25.)? 


i (Cf, Shakspeare, “Richard Third,” Act V. Scene III.; Milton, “ Paradise 
Lost,” B. IV. 1. 75-78.) 

2 On the last passage, see Arnold (A. N.) in “Bap. Quarterly,” Vol. I., p. 
143 sq-; Pepper (G. D. B.) “Bap. Quarterly,” Vol. IV., p. 483 sq.; Hahn (C. von) 
“ Jahrbiicher fiir deutsche Theologie,” X. s. 511 sq. 


The Doctrine of Man. 169 


While the hardness of the: soil, and the reluctance with 
which it yields to man the food which he needs, have a look 
of severity, and remind him of God’s displeasure at his sins, 
they are, in fact, a blessing. The cloud is silver-lined. Toil 
is better than self-indulgence; and self-indulgence would 
increase if toil were diminished. 

Again, a considerable part of the ignorance of mankind is 
due to their sinfulness. For, however intense a desire for 
certain kinds of knowledge may exist in the hearts of wicked 
men, they have an aversion to other kinds of knowledge’; 
while holy beings have a strong desire to understand, as far 
as possible, a// the works and ways of God, who is the Father 
of lights. If mankind had continued upright, they would 
have made far higher attainments in knowledge than they 
have made as sinners. Intelligence would have been diffused 
through all nations and ranks of mankind, and error would be 
a comparative stranger to the world. 

Yet ignorance is not an unmixed evil to a sinful race. 
There is good reason to suppose that vast knowledge would 
be a curse instead of a blessing} if it were not accompanied 
with virtue. For, in that case, it would be certainly used for 
the gaining of selfish ends, and would thus prove an evil to 
its possessor, by increasing his guilt; and to the world, by 
increasing his bad influence. 

But may there not be certain moral advantages to the 
universe from the existence of sin? Is it not possible that 
God may so deal with sinners as to triumph over their wicked- 
ness, add glory to his own name, and augment the holiness 
and blessedness of his people? 

This appears to be, not only possible, but probable. For, 
in dealing with rebels against his holy government, he has 
made a clearer exhibition of his moral character — his right- 
eousness and benevolence —than could have been made, so 
“ar as we can judge, in any other circumstances. And, if this 
be so, it is well nigh certain that it must result in ‘greater 
blessedness for the redeemed than would otherwise be 


possible. 
1 John iii. 19 sq. 


170 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


And so a statement made in a previous part of this manual 
would be confirmed, —to wit, that a world, including in it 
beings who are capable of sinning, is better, notwithstanding 
the evil of sin, than it would be without such beings. Such 
a statement ought not to be perverted so as to seem an 
excuse for sin on the part of the sinner (Rom. iii. 6-8). 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 171 


PART |. PIPTH. 
THE DOCTRINE OF SALVATION. 


THE economy of man’s salvation is an economy of grace, 
resting upon one of justice. The latter has been considered; 
and the former, which is the distinguishing feature of the 
Christian religion, will now engage our attention. It embraces 
several distinct and important topics: The person and work 
of Christ, the person and work of the Holy Spirit, the effect 
of grace upon the character and life of man, and the state of 
men after this life. Before entering upon a study of the 
first of these topics, brief reference may be made to the time 
when Christ appeared in the flesh. 

For the apostle declares, that “when the fulness of the 
time” was come, God sent his Son into the world (Gal. iv. 4); 
and by “the fulness of the time” must be understood that which 
filled up the period which was to elapse, according to the 
counsel of God, before Christ shotild be born. But Paul does 
not state in this place the reason why God had fixed the final 
term of the ante-Christian period at that point of time. It 
may, however, be inferred from other passages, that he believed 
it to have been fixed in view of the extreme need of men. 
As Chrysostom says, ‘“‘ When they were ready to perish, then 
they were saved”’ (ad. Eph. i. 10). 

It may be added, that the circumstances of the time, in 
other respects,? were suited to this supreme event in the his- 
tory of mankind; for (2) The vast Roman Empire offered a 
broad and accessible field for the spread of the new religion. 
(0) The Greek language was widely known, and was the best 


1 Rom. v. 20; Gal. iii. 19, 24. 

2 Neander (A.) “General History of the Christian Religion and Church,” in- 
troduction; Westcott (B. F.) “Intro. to the Study of the Four Gospels,” cc. I. 
II.; Tzschirner (M. C. W.) “Der Fall des Heidenthums,” Erstes Kapitel; Lut: 
terbeck (J. A. B.) “ Die N. T. Lehrbegriffe,” I. vol. 


172 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


possible medium for imparting to men the truths of that 
religion. (c) A deep distrust of the “gods many,” which 
their fathers worshipped, had sunk into the hearts of great 
multitudes of the pagan world. (d) Acquaintance with 
Oriental nations had stimulated religious inquiry in the 
West, and had awakened an expectation of new light from 
the East. (e) Glimpses of spiritual truth had quickened the 
minds of some among the philosophers of Greece, and had 
led them to long for clearer light. (f) The tendency to idol 
worship and polytheism among the Jews had been conquered. 
And (g) In many hearts a longing for the promised Messizh 
had been kindled to a fervent heat.? 


CHAPTER FIRSE 
THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST. 


I. THE PERSON OF CHRIST, THE MEDIATOR. 


In this chapter will be considered : 1. The Deity of Christ ; 
u. The Humanity of Christ; m1. The Personal Oneness of 
Christ; tv. The Effect of the Incarnation on His Higher 
Nature; and, v. The Effect of the Incarnation on His Lower 
Nature. 

On all these topics differences of belief prevail; and it is 
therefore desirable to make the examination as thorough and 
impartial as possible without prolixity. 


I. THE DEITY OF CHRIST.? 


Evidence that Jesus Christ, by virtue of his higher nature, 
was truly God, may be found (1) In the language of the Old 


1 Leathes (S.) “ The Religion of the Christ,” pp. 1 - 176. 

2 Liddon (H. P.) “The Supreme Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus 
Christ”; Parker (J.) “Ecce Deus”; Dorner (J. A.) “History of the Develop- 
ment of the Doctrine of Christ’s Person”’; Lange (J. P.) “The Life of Jesus,” 
&c.; Bushnell (H.) “The Character of Jesus, forbidding his Possible Classifica- 
tion with Men”; Schaff (P.) “The Person of Christ the Miracle of History”; 
Malan (C.) “ Jésus-Christ est L’Eternal-Dieu manifesté en chair”; Stuart (M.) 
“ Miscellanies”; ‘“ Letters to Dr. Channing on the Trinity.” 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 173 


Testament. (2) In respect to the angel of Jehovah; and (4) 
In respect to the Messiah to come. (2) In the language of 
Christ concerning himself, as recorded, (2) In the Synoptical 
Gospels, (4) In the Fourth Gospel, and (c) In the book of Rev- 
elation. (3) In the language of the New Testament writers 
concerning him, as found (a) In the first three gospels, and 
in the Epistles of James, Jude, and Peter; (0) In the writings 
of Paul, including the Epistle to the Hebrews; and (c) In the 
writings of John, —Gospel, Epistles, and Revelation. 


I. IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.? 


(1) Ln respect to the angel of Fehovah. For it appears from 
several passages, (namely Gen. xvi. 7, 10, 13; xvill. I, 2, 3, 
13, 17, 20 sq. (cf. xvii. I sq.); xxxi. 11 — 13 (cf. xxviii. II, 22); 
xxxll. 25-31 (cf. Hos. xii. 4); xlviii. 15, 16; Ex. iii. passim; 
man 20-23 (ci. Isa. xiii. 8); xxxil. 34; xxxiii. 3, 14 (cf 2 
Sam. xvii. 11; Deut. iv. 37; Isa. lxili. 8, 9), that “the angel 
of Jehovah,” “the angel of God,” “the angel that wrestled 
with Jacob” and “redeemed Israel fron. all evil,” “the angel 
in whom is God’s name,’ “the angel of his presence,” and 
“his presence,” are appellations of a being who is also called 
by himself, or by the sacred writers, “ God,” “ Jehovah,” and 
“JT am that I am;” and therefore it may be inferred that the 
two expressions are substantially equivalent. 

The argument has been summed up as follows :— 

““(1) The Malak Jehovah expressly identifies himself with 
Jehovah ; (2) Those to whom he appears own, designate, and 
worship him as true God; (3) He accepts of sacrifices and 
prayers without protesting against such acts of worship; 
(4) Biblical writers frequently designate him as Jehovah.”’? 

Lange in “Herzog,” says that “ The Theophany or Christo- 
phany of the Scripture is the manifestation of the future 
Christ, represented by the angel of Jehovah (Gen. xvi. 7, and 


1 Hengstenberg (E. W.) “ Christology of the Old Testament”; Smith (J. P.) 
“Testimony of Scripture to the Messiah.” 

2 Kurtz (J. H.) “History of the Old Covenant,” I. p. 196; Uehler (G. F.) 
“ Theology of the Old Testament,” sects. 59, 60. 


174 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


often) the angel of the Presence (Ex. xxxiii. 14; Isa. Ixiii. 9), 
the angel of the covenant (Mal. iii. 1). The view of those 
who see in the angel of the Lord merely a created angel 
pierces, in our opinion, the very heart of the Old Testament 
doctrine of revelation, and disturbs, fundamentally, the whole 
organic development of the revelation of God from its begin- 
ning to its fulness in the incarnation.’ 

It has indeed been inferred from other passages in the Old 
Testament, and from some in the New (Deut. xxxiii. 2; 
Ps. xviii. 18 (cf. Ex. xix. 18; xx. 1); see also Acts Wilusas 
Gal. ili. 19; Heb. ii. 2; Acts vii. 38; Heb. xiii. 2; Dan. viii. 16; 
ix, 21;X. 13, 21; xii. 1; ‘Matt. i. 20; i. 137 Dukegiapeeeee 
“that Jehovah presents himself in the Malak by the medium 
of a finite spirit, but as a person in this personal, living, and 
finite spirit. Jehovah is not without, but in the angel, whois 
the medium of God's revelation of himself.... And the 
manifestation of God is much more transparent in an angel 
than in a prophet, inasmuch as the former is a purely 
spiritual and siniess being.” ? 

But the view that the angel of Jehovah was an actual 
theophany, or appearance of God to man, is most naturally 
suggested by the language of the Old Testament, and should 
therefore be accepted as true. 

Moreover, there are indications sufficiently clear that the 
angel of Jehovah was, in fact, the pre-incarnate Word. For 
(a) Christ is called “apostle,” or “messenger,” in the New 
Testament (Heb. iii. 1). This_name, it is true, is given to 
him but once; but the corresponding verb is frequently 
applied to him (John iii. 17, 34; v. 36; vi. 29, §7; vil. 20; 
xvii. 3, 8, 21, &c.). (4) The angel of Jehovah and the pre- 
existent Word appear to be identified by some of the New 
Testament writers. (Luke i. 15-17 (cf. Mal. iii. 1-24); 1 
' Cor. 10-4 (cf. Ex. xxiii. 20-21; Jud. ii. 1-5.) (¢) The work 
of the incarnate Word was to reveal the invisible God and 


1 Herzog, Real-Encyklopadie, s. v. “‘ Theophanie.” 
2 Delitzsch (F.) “ Kinleitung und Commentar zur Genesis,” s. 256. 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 175 


save his chosen people; and that work was essentially the 

same as that of the angel of Jehovah. 

(2) ~Ln respect to the Messiah, as divine. In this connec- 
tion, it is necessary to study the four great Messianic Psalms, 

together with several paragraphs in the writings of Isaiah, 

Micah, Zechariah, Malachi, and Daniel.? 

(1) The second Psalm represents the wicked as conspiring 
against Jehovah and against his anointed. This Christ, on 
‘the other hand,-is set forth as begotten by Jehovah, invested 
by him as king in Zion with the moral government of man- 
kind, sure to subdue all his foes, entitled to the homage of all 
men, however high their rank, and a source of blessing to 
those who put their trust in him. The New Testament 
writers apply the words of this psalm to Jesus Christ. (See 
Acts iv. 24,27; xili. 33; Heb.i.5; v.5.) Theinternal peculi- 
arities of it require such an application; and the ancient Jews 
ascribe to it the same Messianic character. Perowne believes 
that it had primary reference to some Jewish monarch, as 
Solomon, perhaps; but this monarch was so conceived of and 
described as to be atype of Christ.. Such a view of its mean- 
ing does not detract from its value as evidence for the God- 
head of Jesus. 

(2) The forty-fifth Psalm celebrates the righteousness, 
power, glory, and happiness of the Messiah. His reign is to 
be perpetual. He is addressed as God; and his spouse, the 
object of his love, is urged to forget her own people and father 
in her regard for him. In favor of the Messianic interpreta- 
tion of this psalm may be urged the authority of the Epistle 
to the Hebrews (see i. 8, 9) —which is of itself decisive, — 
and also the admission of ‘the psalm into the canon of the 
Old Testament by the Jews; for, as a royal epzthalamium, it 
must be pronounced extravagant, and even impious. Only 


1 Reinke (L.) “Die Messianische Weissagungen bei den grossen und kleinen 
Propheten des Alten Testaments”; Leathes (S.) ““The Witness of the Old 
Testament to Christ”; Smith (J. P.) “Testimony of Scripture to the Messiah,” 
vol. I.; Higginson (E.) “ Ecce Messias”; Oehler (G. F.) “ Theology of the Old 
Testament,” II. sects. 230-234; Leathes (S.) “The Religion of the Christ,’ 
Lectures II., III., IV. 


176 Manuat of Systematic Theotogy. 


by interpreting it of Christ and his Church (cf. Eph. v. 23 sq.} 
can its right to a place in the canon be vindicated ; and we 
know of no valid objection to this interpretation. Yet we do 
not mean to assert, that it could not have had respect, prima- 
rily, to some Jewish monarch, who was made by the spirit of 
God a type of Christ to the sacred writer. 

(3) The seventy-second Psalm represents the Messiah under 

the figure of a king’s son, who is also king, and whose reign 
is righteous, universal, peaceful, beneficent, and perpetual. 
Though the psalm is not expressly quoted in the New Testa- 
ment, the terms which it employs are so extravagant, if meant 
for an earthly monarch, and so exactly pertinent to the Mes- 
siah, according to other descriptions of his reign in the Old 
Testament, that every just principle of interpretation requires 
us to look upon it as relating to him, either typically or directly ; 
and, if so, the seventeenth verse teaches his divinity, — “ His 
name shall be forever; before the sun shall he continue his 
name; and they shall bless themselves in him: all nations 
shall pronounce him blessed.” 
_ (4) The one hundred tenth Psalm represents the Messiah as 
co-regent with Jehovah, —as an eternal priest-king, and as 
subduing all his foes. The psalm is very often quoted in the 
New Testament, and always as descriptive of Christ; and its — 
language is obviously inapplicable to a merely human being, 
One who is a sunthronos with Jehovah, and a regal priest for- 
ever, can hardly be less than God. This remarkable psalm is 
most naturally understood as a simple and direct prediction 
of Christ ; yet some prefer to regard it as describing typically 
his reign. 

(5) The words of Isa. ix. 5, 6, seem to pass entirely beyond 
the limits of any even poetic description of a simply human 
ruler, and must be interpreted of Christ. Consider them: “For 
unto usa child is born, unto us a son is given ; and the govern- 
ment shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called, 
Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, 
Prince of Peace. And to the increase of his government and 
to peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David and 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 177 


upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it in judgment 
and in righteousness, from this time and to eternity.” This 
language ascribes to the Ruler in question a nature and office 
truly divine; and it may therefore be relied upon as teaching 
the deity of Christ. 

(6) The words of Micah, v. 2—5, may be translated thus: 
“ And thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, too small to be among the 
thousands of Judah, from thee for me shall one come forth to 
be aruler in Israel; and his comings forth are of old, — the 
days of eternity,’ &c. In this remarkable prediction, the 
Messiah is represented as one (2) Whose places of coming 
forth had been “of old, — the days of eternity”; (4) Whose 
place of coming forth hereafter should be Bethlehem,—a 
small village in Judea; (c) Who should be born of a woman; 
(Z) Who should bea ruler in Israel; and (e) Who should rule 
as a shepherd in the strength and name of Jehovah." 

(7) The passage in Zech. xiii. 7, reads thus: “ Awake, O 
sword, against my shepherd, and against the man, my asso- 
ciate, saith Jehovah of hosts!” The word rendered “associate”’ 
occurs in several other places (forexample, Lev. v. 21 ; xviii. 20; 
XIX, II, 15, 17; xxlv. IQ; xxv. 14, 15,17), and:signifies “ union” 
or “fellowship; and the “man of my union” can only sig- 
nify the man with whom I am united, —that is, my associate, 
companion, fellow. That it should be used by Jehovah of an 
earthly king seems very improbable. It reminds one of sev- 
eral expressions in the New Testament which confirm the 
view we have taken (for example, John xiv. 9; Phil. ii. 6; 
Seleeotss) Lieb. 1:3; Rev. xxii. 1, 3). 

(8) The words of Malachi iii. 1, ‘“ Behold, I am sending my 
messenger; and he shall prepare the way before my face: and 
the Lord whom ye are seeking shall suddenly come to his 
temple, even the messenger of the covenant whom ye delight 
in,’ &c. The speaker in this prophecy is Jehovah of hosts; 


1 See Hengstenberg (E. W.) “ Christology of Old Test.” I. p. 475 sq., 2 ed. 
Eng. transl. Commenting on the arbitrary changes in the text proposed by 
Ilitzig, Maurer says, ‘‘Deprecamur omnipotentem istam superioris temporis 
exegesin; deprecamur lidem male sanam Hitzigii criticen.” 


178 Manual of Systemaiie Theology. 


the messenger sent before is 4zs messenger, preparing Ais 
way; and the Lord, the messenger of the covenant, in whom 
the people profess to delight, and who is about to come to his 
temple, and sit asa refiner and purifier, must certainly be 
Jehovah himself, but in the person of Christ. 

(9) Daniel ‘‘ saw one like a son of man,” who “came with 
the clouds of heaven,’ even to the Ancient of days. “And 
there was given him dominion and glory and a kingdom, that 
all people, nations, and languages should serve him; his ~ 
dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass 
away,” &c. (vil. 13, 14.). This vision was manifestly typical 
of the kingdom and reign of Christ; and, if it represents with- 
out exaggeration the greatness and duration of that kingdom, 
he must be divine; for the true God will not give his glory 
to another.! ’ 

ul. IN THE LANGUAGE OF CHRIST HIMSELF? as recorded 
(1) Lu the Synoptical Gospels. For according to the plain 
meaning of his words and conduct, as here represented, he 
claimed (a) To have superhuman knowledge, and particularly 
a knowledge of future events contingent on the free agency 
of man (Mark xi. 2-6; Luke xix. 30-34; Matt. xxvi. 31-35; 
Mark xiv. 27-31). (4) To work great miracles, such as rais- 
ing the dead, and feeding the multitudes with five loaves and 
two small fishes (Matt. xiv. 1g—21; Mark vi. 41-44; Matt. 
x1. 5; xv. 30, 31; Luke viii. 41-56; vii. 11-17). (©, To em- 
power others to work miracles, or to perform them himself at 
their word, though he was not with them (Matt. x. 8; Lukeix. 
1,2; Mark vi. 7, 12,13). (d) To forgive sins as if with divine 
authority, implying certainly a knowledge of the heart, and a 
right to speak as God, or for God (Matt. ix.2-6; Mark il. 5-12; 


1.See “‘Excursus on the Messiah,” in the Speaker’s Commentary; Heng: 
stenberg (E. W.) ‘‘Christology of the Old Test.” III. pp. 82-92; “Smith’s 
Bible Dict.,” art. “Son of Man”; Schultze (L. T.) “Vom Menschensohn und 
vom Logos,” Erster Abschnitt. 

2 Gess (W. F.) “Die Lehre von der Person Christi entwickelt aus dem Selbst- 
bewusstsein Christi und aus dem Zeugniss der Apostel”; Rougemont M.. 
“Christ et ses Témoins”; Schmid (C. F.) “Theology of the N. T.”; sec. 22 
sq-; Weiss (B.) “ Theologie des N. T.” ss. 57-67. : 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 179 


Luke v. 20-26). (e) To rule over all things,—at least, in 
behalf of his people, —and to be present with them in all their 
places of worship (Matt. xi. 27; Luke x. 22; Matt. xxviii. 18: 
Matt. xviii. 20). (f) To know the Father directly and fully, 
as no one else can (Matt. xi. 27; Luke x. 22). (g) Tobethe 
Son of God, in a peculiar and eminent sense, implying sameness 
Gomamiie (Matt. x. 32, 33; xi. 27; xvi. r7, 27). And (2) To 
be the final Judge (Matt. vii. 21-23; xill. 41-43; xix. 28, 
29; xxv. 31 sq.; Mark xiv. 62; Luke ix. 26; xxii. 69, 70). 

(2) Lu the Fourth Gospel. The language of Christ in this 
gospel is often remarkable, and sometimes difficult to under- 
stand; but it evidently claims for him (@) To be from above, 
where he had been with the Father in glory, before the world 
was (iii. 13; vi. 38, 50, 51, 62; xvii. 5); (4) To be, in a dis- 
tinctive sense, the Son of God, knowing perfectly the way of 
the Father, and doing always what the Father did (v. 17-27, 
36, 43; vi. 40; x. 37,38); (©) To be possessed of divine attri- 
butes and prerogatives (iii. 13; vill. 58; xiv. 9; xvi. 15; 
XVli. 10); and (2) To be the source of light and life to men 
(xii. 55,150, 45, 460; Xi. 25; xiv. @). 

The language preserved in the fifth chapter is certainly very 
profound. By it, Christ represents himself as knowing all 
that the Father performs, and as doing the same things which 
the Father does, in the same way in which the Father does 
them. Nay, more; by it, Christ affirms the impossibility of 
his doing any thing apart from the Father. The two were 
inseparable in action ; and their activity was divine, having its 
source in the Father’s will. 

With this language should be connected his declaration in 
the tenth chapter, showing that his followers could not be 
wrested from him, because his own power and action were 


those of the Father as well, — ‘I and my Father are one” ;? 


1 Leathes (S.) “Testimony of John to Christ”; Messner (H1.) “Die Lehre 
der Aposteln,” ss. 316-360; Weiss (B.) “Biblische Theologie des N. T.,” ss. 
656-695; Sears (E. H.) “The Heart of Christ.” 

2 Bengel, ad loc. “ Uzm, non solum voluntatis consensu, sed unitate poten- 
tiz, adeoque nature, nam omnipotentia est attributum naturale: et sermo est 
de unitate Patris et Filii . . . Per semus refutatur Sabellius: per zum, Arius.” 


180 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


and also his words to Philip and the other disciples, recorded 
in the fourteenth chapter, —‘‘ He that hath seen me hath 
seen the Father; and how sayest thou, show us the Father? 
Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in 
me? The words which I speak to you, I speak not from my- 
self, but the Father abiding in me himself doeth the works. 
Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me, but 
if not, on account of the works themselves believe.” It was 
difficult for even the eleven disciples to receive the truth as ~ 
to the absolute unity of Christ and the Father, —a unity which 
made every act of Christ an act of the Father also. 

It was clearly no part of Christ’s object to convince the 
Jews or his disciples of his own deity, apart from the Father. 
This would have been to convince them that there were two 
Gods for them to worship; but his object was to show them 
that he was one with the Father, in such a sense that all his 
working and teaching were the working and teaching of his 
Father. He knewthat the expression, “the Father,” would be 
understood by all to denote the true God; and therefore, in 
order to emphasize the fact that his works were truly divine, 
he ascribed them to the will of the Father, as their first cause; 
but his own will was in absolute accord with his Father's will. 
His own wisdom and action were a perfect manifestation of 
his Father's will and action. 

The language of Christ appears, no doubt, to give a certain 
precedence to the will of the Father ; but it is not easy for us 
to define that precedence, or to determine how much his dis- 
cussion of the matter was influenced by the state of mind 
which he saw in his hearers. One thing is certain: He 
acknowledged the deity of the Father; and, if he was to win, 
their confidence at all, it must be by showing them, not that 
he was personally the Father, but that he recognized and 
honored the Father, and was one with him in word and 
deed. 

But his sayings went beyond the idea of moral unity, such 
as might exist between a creature and the Creator, and sug- 
gested, on the one hand, the idea of a proper sonship, implying 


Lhe Doctrine of Salvation. 181 


the same kind of nature in him and the Father ;! and, on the 
other hand, the idea of mutual interpenetration or indwelling, 
which again deepens into that of identity at the very root of 
being and power, so that the activity of the one was also the 
activity of the other. And this last view agrees best with the 
unity of God, and with the passages in which Christ claims 
divine attributes (for example, John iii. 13 ; viii. 58; xvi. 15). 

Says Olshausen (H.) “In the Father, things are shut up 
and hidden which manifest themselves in the Son; therefore, 
all things which the Son has belong to the Father: but, in the 
Son, the properties of the Father are revealed to men, in order 
that his name may be celebrated with praise. Life thus lying 
concealed with the Father in the beginning was manifested 
to men in the Son; so that when the Father is manifested, 
the Son is to be seen.” —(Opuscula, quoted by Fairbairn on 
1 Tim. vi. 19.) 

(3) Lx the book of Revelation. The words of this book, which 
may be regarded as the testimony of Christ himself, show, 
(a) That he is the Son of God, in a sense which makes him truly 
divine (ii. 18). (6) That he is the first and the last and the 
living; or, in other words, eternal (i. 17, 18; ii. 8; xxii. 13). 
(c) That he is the Word of God, the King of Kings, and the 
Lord of Lords (xix. 11-16). (d) That he is worshipped by 
the heavenly hosts with supreme adoration (v. 12-14). And 
(e) That he is associated with God as the source of life and 
light and joy in the heavenly world (xxi. 22, 23; xxii. I, 3, 5). 

1. IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE WRITERS OF THE NEW 
TESTAMENT CONCERNING HIM, as found: — 

(1) Ln the Synoptical Gospels and the Epistles of Fames, 
Fude, and Peter. Without entering into any discussion of the 
objects specially sought by the several writers of these books,? 


1 On the question as to the Eternal Generation or Sonship of the Logos, see 
Stuart (M.) “Letters to Dr. Channing on the Trinity,” and “Letters to Dr. 
Miller on the Eternal Generation of the Son of God”; Miller (S.) “On the 
Eternal Generation of the Son of God”; Princeton Theol. Essays, First Series, 
“The Sonship of Christ ”; Wardlaw (R.) “‘Systematic Theology,” vol. II. 

2 Westcott (B. F.) “Introduction to the Study of the Four Gospels,” cc. 4-8. 


182 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


it is perfectly evident that they looked upon Jesus Christ 
as being (2) One who knew the thoughts of men, — at least 
of all those whom he met or taught (Matt. xii. 25; Mark ii. 8; 
viii. 17). (6) One who was in a peculiar and eminent sense 
the Son of God (Matt. xvi. 16; Luke i. 32, 35 ; Matt. iii. 17; 
xvii. 15 ; Mark ix. 7; 2 Peteri.17; 1 Peteri. 3). And (¢) One 
who was the Head and Lord of all Christians, worthy of perfect 
obedience and religious homage (James i. 1; ii. 1; 1 Peteri. 8; 
lil, 15, 22; 2 Peteri. 1, 8, 11, 14; Ul. 1, 205) 
4, 17, 21, 25). It.is difficult to believe that they could have 
looked upon him thus, without holding him to be in nature 
divine. 

(2) Ln the writings of Paul, together with the Epistle to the 
Hebrews. Of the many statements in relation to the higher 
nature of Christ in this part of the New Testament, only a 
few can be mentioned. By some of them, Christ is repre- 
sented, (a2) As being along with the Father the original 
source of grace, mercy, and peace to all believers (Rom. i. 7; 
Vili. 9; xv. 18, 19, 29; xvi. 20, 24; 1 Cor. 1. 35 xvtea eee 
i. 2; xiii. 14; Gal. i..3; vi. 18; Eph. i. 2; 1 a@gieeee 
(2) As being the possessor and giver of the Holy Spirit 
(Rom. viii. 9; Gal. iv. 6; 2 Cor. iii. 17); (6) Ase 
supreme authority in the church, and over all things for the 
church (1 Cor. i. 1; v. 43 vil. 12; Xv. 24) 25 eee 
4,5; v.20; x. 8; Eph. i. 21, 22; ii. 20 sq.} Seu 
Heb. iii. 3, 6); (d@) As the One by whom and for whom all 
things have been made and are sustained (1 Cor. viii. 6; 
Col. i. 16, 17; Heb. i. 2, 3, 10); (e) As the final judge of all 
mankind (1 Cor. iv. 5; 2 Cor. v. 10; 1 Thess.@ivetgaes 
2 Thess. i. 6-10; 2 Tim. iv. 1, 8); (f) As the true and 
perfect image cf God (Col. i. 15 ; Heb. i. 3; Col. i. 19); (g) As 
the own and beloved Son of God +(Rom. 1. 3, 4, 9} Vili. 3, 29, 
32; 2 Cor. i. 19; xi. 31; Gal. ii. 20; iv. 4; Eph iyi 
i. 2, 5,-8; iv. 14; v. 8; vi. 6; vii. 3); (2) AS Deteemaeee 
form of God before incarnation, and as being God the Creator 
and Supreme Mediatorial King (Phil. ii. 6; Rom. ix. 5; Heb. 
i. 8, 10; Col. ii, 9/(cf. 1 Cor, ii. 8, 165%. 21, 22 5 xh open 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 183 


xii. 8) ; and finally (¢) As being addressed in prayer, and made 
the object of religious worship (1 Cor. i. 2; 2 Tim. iv. 18, 22). 
Meyer assigns three reasons for believing that the last 
clause of Rom. ix. 5 cannot refer to Christ, but must be a 
doxology to God the Father. Briefly, they are these: — 

First, Paul nowhere else denominates Christ, God; and 
therefore he cannot be supposed to give him that name here. 
It is the name which he always applies to God the Father, 
who is zaturaliter divine. But it must be said, in response 
to this, that Paul certainly teaches, that Christ once existed 
in the “form of God” (Phil. ii. 6), and that in him dwells 
“all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” Why then might 
he not call him God once, or a few times, though for distinc- 
tion’s sake he generally gave this name to the Father? 
Besides, Meyer admits that John calls the higher nature of 
Christ, God,—once, at least; and he says, but once. The 
case of Thomas is also parallel. 

Second, that nowhere in the apostolic writings is there a 
doxology addressed to Christ. He admits, indeed, that the 
doxology in 2 Tim. iv. 18 refers to Christ; but he adds, that 
this is to be reckoned “with the traces of its post-apostolic 
composition.” There is, however, no sufficient reason to 
doubt the Pauline authorship of the Second Epistle to Tim- 
othy. Nor is there any good reason for supposing that he 
would not use similar language here. 

Third, that the words “ over all” could not have been used 
of Christ as God. But surely if Christ could-be denominated 
God, he could be described as ‘‘ God over all;” since no one 
would dream that God the Father was embraced in the mean- 
ing of the word “all.” In another place, Paui asserts that 
God “ gave him to be head over all things to the church.” ? 

In favor of the ordinary interpretation, which refers the 

1 See also 2 Pet. iii. 18; 1 Pet. iv. 11. 

2 Eph.i 22. See also an instructive Article on this clause in the “ Jahr- 
biicher fiir deutsche Theologie,” 1868, s. 462 ff., by Schultz (11.), who believes 
that the words must refer to Christ, though without teaching his equality in 


nature with the Father. No one, probably, ever doubted the proper rendering 
of the clause, who was not influenced by dogmatic reasons. 


184 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


clause to Christ, may be urged, (a) its naturalness in the con. 
nection, (4) the position of the adjective “blessed” after the © 
word “God,” and (c) the presence of the Greek participle, 
translated “is.” For this participle appears to be superfluous, 
if the clause is a doxology; while the adjective regularly pre- 
cedes the noun in a doxology, but follows it, as here, in a 
description. (Compare Luke i. 68; 2 Cor. i. 3; 1 Peter i, 3; 
Gen. xiv. 20; 2 Sam. xxii. 47; Ps. xviii. 46; xvi. 20; xxii. 19; 
cxix. 12; Ezek. iii. 12; Dan. iii. 28, 33); (“ Prayersof ihe 
Three,” in the LXX.) with Rom. i. 25; 2 Cor. xi. 31.) The 
only apparent exception to this rule is in the Sept. version of 
Ps. Ixviii. 20, where the order of words in the Hebrew is reg- 
ular. Meyer conjectures that the Hebrew word for “blessed” 
was repeated in the manuscript used by the LXX. 

The best authorities require the word ‘“‘who” to be sub- 
stituted for the word ‘‘ God,” in 1 Tim. iii. 16. Whether “the 
Lord” should take the place of ‘‘God,” as the original read- 
ing, in Paul's address to the Ephesian elders (Acts xx. 28), is 
still doubtful. Neither of these passages, therefore, can be 
associated with Rom. ix. 5, by way of argument. 

The same may be said, though for other reasons, of Eph. 
v. 5. and Titus ii. 13. It is by no means certain, that the 
word “God” refers, in either of the passages, to Christ; yet 
a preponderance of evidence favors the view that it does, 
especially in the second. For, in respect to the first, it is to 
be borne in mind, that both “God” and “Christ” are used 
either with or without the article in the writings of Paul ; and 
in respect to the second, that the words “coming,” “appear- 
ing,” and “revelation” are used exclusively of Christ, — that is, 
when they refer to his second advent. But. it is also to be 
considered, that it is “‘the appearing of the glory of the great 
God,” &c., which is spoken of here; and therefore, Matt. xvi. 
27, and Mark viii. 38, must be compared. 

Yet, even in the expression recorded by these two evan- 
gelists, prominence is given to Chris¢ as the leading figure; 
for he is to “come in the glory of his Father, with his angels,” 
or “with the holy angels”; while in other passages he is said 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 185 


to come “in his own glory” (Matt. xxv. 31; 1 Peter iv. 13); 
but if the words “great God,” in Titus ii. 13, refer to the 
Father, the leading place at the second advent seems to be 
assigned to the Father, or to his glory. It seems probable, 
then, that Christ is here called “the great God.” If not, his 
glory must be conceived of as blended with, and of the same 
nature with that of the Father, though taking here a secondary 
place. 

(3) li the writings of Fohn. The beloved disciple appears 
to have been led by the Spirit of God, in view of errors-which 
had begun to appear in the churches, and also, perhaps, in 
view of his own spiritual insight and predilection of heart, 
to set forth with uncommon fulness the doctrine of Christ’s 
theanthropic nature; yet he was led to do this, for the most 
part, by putting on record the teaching of Christ himself, 
which has been already examined. His own language, how- 
ever, will be found to repay careful study, whether it be 
regarded as merely interpreting that of his Lord, or, also, as 
adding somewhat to the teaching of the latter. 

For he teaches distinctly, (2) The existence of the Word, 
or higher nature of Christ, in the beginning; and he uses a 
word to signify that existence which appears to exclude all 
thoughts of origin (John i.1; 1 John i. 1, 2). Observe the 
use of 7 in speaking of the Word, while éyéver0 is used of John 
the Baptist and of the incarnation (John i. 6, 14 (cf. viii. 58); 
(6) The Word, or higher nature of Christ, was wztk God in 
the beginning, and with him, as the Greek preposition sug- 
gests, in the way of rational affection and fellowship, —(see 
the same passages as above) ; (c) By the Word, according to 
the will of the Father, all things were brought into existence 
(John i. 3); (2) He was also the source of all life not strictly 
divine, and, through it, of all knowledge of God among men 
(John i. 4,5; 1 Johni. 2 (cf. Jo. i. 9, 14, 16); (e) The incarnate 
Word, while on earth, was in most intimate and loving com- 
munion with the Father whom he revealed, and whom he 
was able to reveal, because of that communion (John i. 18, 14) ; 
(f) He knew, therefore, the mind of God, and at the same 


186 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


time the hearts of all the men with whom he had to do (John 
li. 24, 25; v. 6; vi. 61, 64; xi. 13, 14); (g) He was the only- 
begotten Son of God, if not as to his higher nature in eter- 
nity, at least as to his divine human being and personality in 
time (John i, 14, 503 ill. 16-18, 35, 36; 1 JOnmeie memes 
ili. 23; iv. 14, 15; Vv. 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 20); and (%) By virtue 
of his higher nature, he was truly God (John i. 1; xx. 28; 
I John v. 20 (cf. John i. 18). 

A few remarks may be added in explaiaenel of certain 
passages referred to under (/). 

The substance of Meyer’s note on the last clause of John 
i. I, is embraced in the following statements: Férs¢, that Med¢ 
(God) must be the predicate of the sentence; since, if it were 
not, this declaration would contradict the preceding one, by 
identifying God and the Word, who are there distinguished. 
Second, that the predicate precedes the subject, because the 
former is to be emphasized ; for the progress of thought, “he 
was w7tk God, and he was (not, perhaps, a person of inferior 
kind, but) of dévine nature,’ requires the emphasis to fall on 
the added fact. Third, the omission of the article before #e6e 
was necessary, for 6 0edg after the foregoing mpdg tov Sedov would 
have ascribed to the Word identity of persoz with the Father, 
which would have been inconsistent with the distinction of 
person just expressed; while the noun without the article 
adds to the assertion of distinction in person, —an assertion of 
unity in essence and nature. Meyer quotes from Luther the 
pithy remark, that “the last proposition,— the Word was 
God, —is against’ Arius; the other,— ¢he Word was with 
God, — against Sabellius.”’ 

There is also force in Green’s remark, “that a term cannot 
be fully effective, in virtue of its inherent signification, when 
encumbered with the article” (p. 47). Thusin Heb. 1. 1, “had 
the words been év t@ vig, they would merely have called to mind 
the person already familiarly known under the title of the 
Son of God, without pointing attention to the inherent 
meaning of the title” (Ib. cf. John iv. 24). In John i. 1, last 
clause, “‘ 926g is the predicate, — that is, all that is involved:in 


‘ 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 187 


the notion of deg is predicated of the Word; namely, the 
proper nature and attributes of God” (p. 37, Green’s (T. S.) 
werummaref the N.T.”): « 

It has been thought by some, that John borrowed the term 
“Logos,” from Philo; but this is scarcely probable: certainly 
he gave the term a meaning very different from that which it 
has in the writings of the Alexandrian philosopher. After 
examining the evidence on this point, de Pressense uses the 
’ following language (“Jesus Christ, Times, Life, and Work,” 
p. 83, transl.): “A judgment may now be formed of the 
assertion, so lightly thrown out, that Philo is the elder 
brother of Jesus, and the inspirer of John. For my part, I 
know no contradictions in the history of human thought more 
flagrant than those which exist between the doctrines of 
these two. The first rests wholly upon the negation of moral 
evil; the starting-point of the second is the deep and bitter 
consciousness of sin. Alexandrine theosophy admits ne 
redemption ; the Gospel is nothing without this article. Philo 
proclaims the impossibility of Deity uniting himself directly 
with the human creature; while the incarnation is the grand 
theme of St. John. The one sees in the Word only the 
abstract generalization of divine ideas; the other adores in 
him ‘the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the 
Father.’ Philo’s ultimatum is this: Deity cannot touch that 
which 7s material. The Fourth Gospel is summed up in this 
expression of its prologue: The Word became flesh. The 
antithesis is absolute; for that which is with St. John a capital 
truth would be to the Jew of Alexandria appalling blasphemy. 
If, then, Christianity must, at all costs, be linked with an 
antecedent system, this precursor must be sought elsewhere 
than in the synagogues of Egypt.” 

John xx. 28: ‘“ My Lord and my God!” These words were 
addressed to Christ: hence, they pronounce him God, and 
teach his deity. But some reject the full sense of this expres- 
sion, on the ground that Thomas was carried away by his 
feelings, and made use of extravagant language. We see no 
evidence of this ; yet we hesitate to take the words of Thomas 


188 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


at this time, as by themselves proof of the deity of Christ; 
for the Holy Spirit had not yet been given, to guide the 
disciples into all the truth. But his words do not stand by 
themselves. Christ seems to approve them ; and John, whose 
chief object in writing was to set forth the nature and claims 
ot his Master, records them. 

“The unbelief of Thomas,” says Leathes, “rose to a height 
of daring obstinacy, which cannot frequently, if in any case, 
be equalled. It is plain, not only that he must have had 
evidence of the very nature that our modern doubters ask 
for, and such as they cannot have, but also, that every single 
convert whom Thomas brought to Christ must have believed, 
upon less evidence than he himself had fixed as the limit on 
which alone he would believe.”’? 

And, on the other hand, his recognition of the very deity 
of Christ was as remarkable and unqualified as had been his 
unbelief. “His soul lifts itself, by a sudden mighty sweep, 
from the unbelief of hopeless melancholy to that highest 
word of belief.” —(Luthardt.) “The exclamation of adoration 
by Thomas: ‘My Lord and my God!’ in which the faith of 
the most incredulous of the disciples suddenly takes the most 
daring flight, and attains the height of its aim, such as is 
announced in the prologue, brings the narrative to a conclu- 
sion. Itis thus that the end unites with the starting-point.” — 
(Godet.) 

I John v. 20: “This is the true God, and eternal life.” 
This clause relates to Christ, for three reasons: (1) The pro- 
noun “this” is most naturally referred to Jesus Christ, the 
nearest antecedent. (2) John is wont to represent Christ, 
and not the Father, as ‘the Life,” or “the Eternal Life.” — 
(See John i. 4; vi. 48; xi. 25;-xiv. 6; and 1 Johmeiee gas 
II, 12). (3) The Son is declared in the former part of this 
verse to be essentially one with the true God, by the asser- 
tion, that we are in the true God by being in him. 

The use of the adjective ¢yIwog*? before Seog can be no 


1 “The Witness of John to Christ,” p. 125. 
2 Kluge (Dr.) “Der Begriff des dA7Suvév,” Jahrbiicher fiir Deutsche Theo 
logie XI. s. 333 ff. 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 189 


_ objection to a reference of the clause to Christ ; for, if Christ 
was God at all, he was God in reality, not in appearance 
merely.! And, if he was entitled to the designation “true 
God,” there is no reason why it should not be given him 
here; if it belonged to him as well as to the Father, this 
was a very suitable place in which to apply it to him. 

But the use of the article makes a difficulty, though not, in 
our judgment, insuperable. For the object here is to empha- 
size the fact of the Christian’s intimate fellowship with God; 
since being in Christ was being in God. The thought appears 
to be this: We are in the true God, by being, as we all know 
that we are, in his Son, Jesus Christ ; for Jesus Christ, as weil 
as the Father, and because he is in essence and nature one 
with the Father, is the true God and eternal life. 

Neither the Father, nor the Son, nor the Holy Spirit can 
be said to comprehend all that is God, — the entire Godhead ; 
but if they are one in nature and essence, one at the very root 
of being, it would seem that each of them must be in nature . 
and in his appropriate action the true God to Christians, — 
the true God, that is, in distinction from all false gods.? 

Reference is made to John i. 18, under (Z), because there is 
important manuscript authority for reading povoyemj¢ Seog in- 
stead of 0 povoyeryg viog. The reading is adopted by Tregelles, 
and ably defended by Dr. Hort. The four best uncials, 
NBC*L, and 33, a very important cursive manuscript, sustain 
it. If this reading be correct, the words may be translated: 
“ God, only begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father, he 
declared him.’”’ But the proposed reading, though so well 


1 Tittmann, Synon, N. T., p. 155, thus defines dAnSvdv: “qui non tantum 
nomen habet et speciem, sed veram naturam et indolem, quz nomini convenit, 
notioni nomine significatze omni ex parte respondens, germanus, genuinus.”’ 

2 See Kahnis (K. F. A.) “Die lutherische Dogmatik historisch - genetisch dar- 
gestellt,” I. s. 354. The view which we have taken of this passage is supported 
by such interpreters as Luther, Calvin, Beza, Episcopius, Spener, Bengel, 
Olshausen, Thomasius, (II. 20), Tholuck (See John xvii. 3), Stier, Ebrard, 
Ko6stlin, Hahn, Braune, Schultze, Liddon, Weiss, and others. 

3 Hort Dr. (F. J. A.) “Two Dissertations,” 1876. Compare Abbot (E.) in 
the “ Bib. Sac.” for Oct. 1861 


190 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


supported, cannot be relied upon in establishing a doctrine of 
Christ’s person. 

In conclusion, it may be remarked, that the undeniable and 
frequent application of the title xvgie,! with or without the 
article, to Christ by the apostles, proves that they believed 
him to be God; for, in the Septuagint, this word represents 
the Hebrew name, Jehovah ; and, in its religious use in the 
New Testament, is restricted to God and Christ. In several 
passages. of the Epistles, it is difficult to say whether it 
means God the Father, or Christ Jesus. It was certainly 
applied to Christ in a religious sense, and was probably used 
instead of the term “God,” for two reasons: first, because 
the Word was supposed to have been the Jehovah of the Old 
Testament theophanies ; and, second, because it was desirable 
to avoid designating the Father and the Son by the same 
word, unless in rare instances, and for special reasons.” 

Any statements of Scripture which seem inconsistent with 
the doctrine that Christ, by virtue of his higher nature, was 
truly God, may be examined to better advantage after con- 
sidering the evidence for his humanity and the effect of the 
incarnation on the condition of the Word, than in this place. 


II. THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST. 


Inasmuch as the humanity of Jesus Christ is admitted at 
the present day by all those who believe in him at all, the dis- 
cussion of this topic may be made very brief, while it is not 
deemed unimportant.’ 

‘We are taught that Christ, in his lower nature, is truly man, 
by such passages as the following : — 

(1) Those in which he is denominated man (John viii. 40; 
Rom. v. 15; 1 Cor. xv. 21; Phil. i. 7,8; 1 Time 
the first three of these passages, there is no reason for sup- 
posing &%9wm0¢ to be employed in a restricted or uncommon 
sense. In the fourth, Christ is said to have appeared in the 


1 See Stuart (M.) “On the Meaning of xipioc in the New Testament,” ee 
lical Repository,” vol. I. p. 733 sq. 

2 See 1 Pet. ii. 3; iii. 15 — the latter passage in its true text. 

3 “Ecce Homo”; Bruce (A. B.) ‘The Humiliation of Christ in Physical, 
Ethical, and Official Aspects.” 


The Doctrine of Salvation. IQl 


likeness of men, and to have been found in form as a man; 
not because his human nature was only apparent, or at best 
defective, but because it was not all, or even the chief part of 
him. He was not simply man, but God and man. In the 
fifth, he is denominated maz, because he performed the work 
of mediation in human nature. 

(2) Those in which he ts called the Son of man (Matt. viii. 20; 
ix. 6; xxvi. 64; Mark ix.9; Luke ix. 22; John v. 27; Acts 
vu. 56). This title is used upwards of eighty times by Christ, 
once by Stephen, and twice in the Apocalypse. It may be 
traced back to Dan. vii. 13, and characterizes Jesus as the 
true Messiah ; but, in the last analysis, it is a descriptive title, 
derived from the human nature of Christ (Matt. i. 1, 21, 25; 
Xiil. 23; xxi. 9; Mark xii. 35; Lukexx. 41; Rom. i. 3; 2 Tim. 
ii. 8). 

(3) Those in which human properties and susceptibilities 
are ascribed to him (Matt. iv. 1 sq.; xxvi. 37; Luke ii. 52; 
Jolin xi. 33, 35; Heb. ii. 17; iv. 15 (cf. v. 2). Accordingly, 
Christ possessed the spiritual as well as bodily nature of man. 
Heb. ii. 17 pronounces him to have been, zz all respects, like 
his brethren; though a limitation is expressed in iv. 15.— 
(See Van Oosterzee on “ The Temptation of Jesus,’ Am. and 
Presby. Rev. 169, p. 753 sq.) 

(4) Those in which his lower nature is called flesh, &c. 
(Johni. 14; 1 John iv. 2; 2 John 7; Rom. viii. 3 ; Heb. ii. 14). 
The word “flesh,” as used in the first four passages, is held 
by most interpreters to signify man, or human nature. Pre- 
cisely how much is implied by it in any passage must, however, 
be learned from the context (cf. Luke iii.6; John xvii. 2; 
Actsii. 17; Matt. xxiv. 22; Rom. iii.20). The terms ‘“ blood 
and flesh, ” used in Heb. ii. 14, signify human nature, regarded, 
perhaps, as frail and mortal (cf. Gal. i. 16; Eph. vi. 12). 
Thus we find a name, strictly applicable to but one factor of 
Christ’s lower nature, chosen to designate the whole of it. 

(5) Those which describe his official work, and suggest the 
fitness, of not necessity, of his being man, as well as God. For, 
as such, — 


192 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


(2) He could be truly under the law of God, and honor the 
same by perfect obedience. This evidently was looked upon 
as at least a part of his work, and indispensable to the rest 
(Rom. v. 19; Gal. iv. 4). 

(6) He could suffer as an expiatory sacrifice; and ee his 
own language it is clear that he must needs anaes in that 
way (Heb. ix. 24-28; 1 Peter ii. 24). 

(c) He could sympathize with men in weakness and trial. 
This also is treated by the writer of the Epistle to the He- 
brews, as if it were an important qualification for his work 
(Heb. ii. 17; v. 7-10). 

(zd) He could raise men into fellowship with God. This 
certainly was accomplished in his own person,—if he was 
truly man; and the same he is to accomplish for all whé trust 
in him. He is the first-born among many brethren; and this 
he could not be, were he not, by virtue of his true humanity, 
their brother. 


III THE PERSONAL ONENESS OF CHRIST. 


The evidence which has been adduced in proof of the deity 
of Christ, on the one hand, and of his humanity, on the other, 
must be understood to refer to the two sides of his being, — 
to the two natures brought together in his person. Yet his 
being was not bipersonal, but unipersonal; he had, strictly 
speaking, but one consciousness, — but one will. 

In the early churches, an important controversy arose on 
the question, whether Christ had but a single will, or both a 
human and a divine will. The parties were denominated 
Monothelites and Diothelites. The controversy was appar- 
ently terminated in favor of the second party ; but it has been 
renewed from time to time down to the present day. In 
A. D 680, the first Trullan (Constantinople) Council decided 
that “one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, is 
to be recognized in two natures, unmixed, unchanged, insep- 
arable, indivisible; the difference of natures by no means 
being destroyed by the unition, but rather the peculiarity of 
each nature being saved, and. running together into one per- 


The Doctrine of Salvation. — 193 


_ son and one hypostasis. We also preach, in like manner, 
according to the teaching of the holy fathers, that there were 
two natural wills or voluntary faculties in him, and two nat- 
ural energies, inseparable, unchangcable, indivisible, and un- 
mixed ; and that the two natural wills were not opposed (God 
forbid!) as the impious heretics say, but his human will fol- 
lowed, not resisting or struggling against, but rather being 
subject to, his divine and omnipotent wii.” 

The decision of this council was doubtless correct in pro- 
nouncing the two natures in Christ to be unmixed and insep- 
arable, and in saying that they were united in one person and 
one hypostasis ; but it was incorrect in ascribing two wills to 
the one person. 

Many of the creeds, formed soon after the Great Reformation, 
distinctly assert the unity of Christ as a person. “Two 
natures in one and the same person” may be called their 
motto on this subject; but it must not be inferred from this 
that they pronounced his consciousness and his will single. 
It was enough to say that he was truly one person. 

In proof of the personal unity of Christ, as explained in the 
first paragraph of this section, reference may be made. 

(a) To his conception and birth. For the simple fact that 
_ the human and the divine were brought into union in this way 
points toa single person as the result. Had the connec- 
tion been established at the time of Christ's baptism, it 
would have been naturally regarded as similar to a possession. 
The Word might have been given to Jesus, as was the Spirit, 
without measure ; but the union would not have been personal. 

(0) To the use of the pronoun “TI,” in speaking of himself. 
If we may regard the gospels as fairly representing his custom 
in this respect, he was wont to speak with great uniformity 
in the first person singular; and the language of sincerity is 
the language of consciousness. Had the Saviour been con- 
scious of two personal centres, of two egos in himself, he 
would doubtless have revealed that consciousness by a frequent 
use of the pronoun “ we.” 

' () To his resurrection and visible. ascension into heaven. 


194 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


The Scriptures lead one to suppose, that the union of the 
human spirit with the Word was not severed by his death on 
the cross; that he resumed by resurrection the same body 
which was laid in Joseph's tomb; and that, as the God-man, 
he ascended into heaven, and sat down on the right hand of 
power. His resurrection is treated as a type and pledge of 
the saints’ resurrection ; hence deity and humanity are united 
in him forever. All this points to a personal union and 
oneness. 

(2) To hes habit of predicating of himself that which depended 
on his divine nature, and that which depended on his human 
nature, — the one as freely as the other, — in precisely the 
same way as an ordinary man predicates of himself color and 
weight, hunger and thirst, as well as will and purpose, reason 
and affection, memory and hope (Matt. xii. 25; xvii. 27; 
John ii. 25; iii. 13; xxi, 17; viii. 58; and Matt aweeguam 
18 sq.; Luke il. 52; Mark xiii. 32; Matt. xxvi. 38; John xi, 5, 
Rap eee ELeb. i iL7): 

It may be remarked in this place that, in consequence of 
the personal unity of his being, whatever Christ did or suf- 
fered, by virtue of either of the natures united in him, received 
character from the other also. This remark will need to be 
borne in mind, when considering the value of his atoning 
death. 


IV. EFFECT OF THE INCARNATION ON THE HIGHER NATURE 
OF CHRIST. 


The subject to be discussed in this section is one of 
peculiar difficulty; and none but a cautious and reverent 
treatment of it will be likely to result in good. We propose 
to notice some of the leading theories that have been promul- 
gated by Christian teachers, before stating the view which is 
supposed to approach nearest the truth. 

(1) Theory of Apollinaris. This was substantially as fol- 
lows: In the person of Christ, the divine Word took the place 
of a human mind or rational spirit, so that his person com- 
prised a human body, an animal soul or life, and the infallible 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 195 


Word. Three things were thought to be gained by this 
theory: first, the personal unity of Christ; second, the 
moral immutability of Christ; and third, the suffering of God 
in the person of Christ. 

But it may be urged against this theory, first, that a muti- 
lation of human nature in Christ cannot be proved necessary, 
in order to secure unity of person, or stability of moral char- 
acter in him; and, secondly, that the absence of a genuine 
human soul in Christ must have rendered him inaccessible to 
temptation, as well as unchangeable in purpose. 

The theory, as broached by SOE has no advocates 
at the present time. 

(2.) Theory of Nestorius. This was an attempt to assert 
the completeness of the human nature, as well as of the 
divine in Christ. According to Hagenbach, “ Nestorius sup- 
posed that the divine and the human natures of Christ ought to 
be distinctly separated, and admitted only a junction (ovagee) 
of the one and the other, an indwelling (évocxyjote) of the Deity.” 
The union was regarded as ethical, rather than physical.’ 

Objections to this theory may be found in the evidence 
which has been already presented of the personal oneness of 
Christ; yet it must be freely admitted, that Nestorius did 
- not mean to deny the unity of Christ’s person. 

Theodore, a leader of this school, says, “In respect to the 
union of divinity and humanity, we recognize one person, 
just as it is said of husband and wife that they are one” ; and 
such a statement condemns the theory which would lead one 
to make it. 

(3.) Theory of Cyril. This was a reaction against that of 
Nesforius; and it laid special emphasis on the unity of 
Christ. The oneness of the natures was said to be physical. 
All the bodily sufferings of man were felt by the incarnate 
Word. But the higher nature of Christ remained omniscient ; 
though, for the sake of acting in congruity with its condition, 


¥ Dorner (J. A.) “ Entwickelungsgeschichte der Lehre von der Person Christi,” 
IL. s. 24 sq.; Hagenbach (K. R.) “‘ History of Doctrines,” I. s. 100; Bruce (A. B.) 
“The Humiliation of Christ,” p. 61 sq. 


196 Manual of Systematic T heology. 


ignorance of some things was professed. The tendency of 
this view was to find in Christ a resultant of forces, human 
and divine; though the divine were so superior as to be in 
constant danger of absorbing the human. Says Dorner, 
““We may call the view of Cyril (according to which the 
human is changed into the divine) the magical aspect of the 
union; and that of Nestorius (according to which the two 
natures are only joined together) the mechanical.” There 
appears to be no tendency to revive the doctrine of Cyril. 

(4.) Theory of Leo. This was expressed in the confession 
adopted by the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451. It con- 
fesses Jesus Christ to be “ perfect in deity, perfect in humanity, 
truly God and truly man; of reasonable soul and body; of 
the same substance with the Father as to his divinity; of the 
same substance with us as to his humanity; in all things like 
to us, except sin; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, 
Only-begotten, manifested in two natures, without confusion, 
without conversion, indivisibly, inseparably ; the distinction 
of natures being by no means abolished by the union, but 
rather the property of each, preserved and combined into one 
person and one hypostasis ; not one severed and divided into 
two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten, 
namely, God Logos, Lord Jesus Christ.” 

This statement represents the cardinal facts truly; but it 
does not attempt to show in what the humiliation of the 
Logos consisted. 

(5.) Theory of Gess. This theory, which has found several 
advocates! in modern times, asserts that the eternal Word 
became human in his personality and experience. To be 
more specific, it is said, that the Logos became totally 
wnconscious in the womb of Mary; that he awoke to con- 


1 Gaupp (Dr.) “Die Union,” 1847, pp. 112-117; Hahn (G. L.) “Die Theo- 
logie des N. T.,” I. pp. 195-210; Schmieder (Dr.) “Das hohepriestliche Gebet 
unsers Herrn Jesu Christi”; Reuss (E.) “History of the Christian Theology of 
the Apostolic Age,” II. 96 sq., in the original, or B. IV. ch. 10; Godet (F.) 
“Commentaire sur l’Evangele de Saint Jean,” I. pp. 247—2€5; Liebner (T. A.) 
“ Christologie,” &c.; Beecher (H. W.) “ Life of Christ,” I. p 49 sq. 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 197 


sciousness as does a newly-born human soul; that his knowl- 
edge was obtained and increased in the same inanner 
substantially as that of other men; that, during his whole 
earthly life, his consciousness, knowledge, and power were 
strictly finite; that his miracles were not wrought by his own 
might, but by the power of the Father and the Holy Spirit 
dwelling in him, —in a word, that he decame human, having 
all the divine attributes, but in a latent condition, their 
natural action being suspended, the divine consciousness kept 
in perfect abeyance, and the Logos exercising his energies 
within the limits appropriate to mere humanity. 

This theory revives that of Apollinaris, by teaching that 
Christ had no rational soul in addition to the incarnate Word, 
but differs from it by teaching that the incarnate Word in his 
actual experience was a human soul. In essence, the Word 
remained divine; but, in attributes, he became human. 

In support of this theory, reference is made (2) To the 
words of John i. 14, and of Paul, Phil. ii. 6, which are said 
to teach the doctrine of this theory expressly. For, by 
emphasizing the words, became flesh (oapk iyévero), and emptied 
himself (éavrov éxevacer), the thought comes out distinctly, that 
in the act of becoming man, the Word depotentiated himself, 
_ or changed the properties of his divine nature into those of 
human nature. 

But it may be doubted whether much stress is to be laid 
on the literal sense of these two expressions. For the verb 
employed by John is used by Paul (Gal. iv. 4) in the sense 
“was begotten” or “was born.” And the language of John 
may signify no more than that of Paul. This is rendered 
more certain by the expression used by John in his First 
Epistle, iv. 2; for, “to come zz flesh” is scarcely equivalent 
to coming as flesh. Still further, the words of the next 
clause, “and dwelt (or tented, icxjywoer) among us,’ may be 
supposed to imply a reference to his human nature, as the 
tent in which the Word dwelt on earth. On the whole, it 
does not appear to be safe to infer, from John i. 14, that the 
Word became flesh by changing his own attributes into those 


198 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


of flesh, even if essence and attributes are not inseparable, 
in such a sense that the essence would be no longer the same 
if the properties were changed. . 

Equally uncertain is the meaning assigned to “emptied 
himself,” in Phil. ii. 7. For if the act referred to be inter- 
preted by the clauses that follow, it consisted in “assuming 
the form of a servant,” in “coming to be, (or being born) in 
likeness of men”; and the word “form” points rather to 
condition and manifestation than to attributes. If it be 
urged that the words, “emptied himself,” naturally signify, 
that, by an act of his own, he parted with the very forces of 
his being,—the inner powers of his deity,—it must be 
considered, on the other hand, that change of “form” nat- 
urally signifies the opposite of this. Says Dr. Hackett, 
“Taking the form of a servant,” states in what the act 
expressed by éxévwos consisted; namely, in exchanging the 
form (or glory) in which he existed as God for that in which 
he existed as a servant. The difference between poggy, form, 
manifestation, and wvy7, soul, or ovoia, nature, substance, 
becomes important here; for we can understand how Christ, 
as the pre-existent Logos, could exchange one mode or man- 
ifestation of existence for another, but not how he could 
divest himself of his original divine nature.” 

(6) To the language used in Acts i. 2; John xiv. 10 (cf. 
Matt. ili. 16; Luke iv. 1; John iii. 34). These passages 
teach, it is said, that the knowledge of Christ was limited, 
inasmuch as it could receive addition from the Father by the 
Holy Spirit. But, if it is borne in mind that the human 
nature of Christ was sanctified at conception by the personal 
agency of the Holy Spirit, it is natural to suppose the sym- 
bolical descent of the Spirit upon him at his baptism, in the 
form of a dove, significant of a larger, miraculous working of 
that Spirit in his human soul. And it has been thought by 
some, that all the miraculous action of the Spirit during the 
ministry of Jesus was confined to his person, or communi- 
cated to others from his person. — (See John vii. 39.) As it 
is the special work of the Spirit to prepare the faculties of 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 199 


the human soul to discern spiritual truth, to receive revela- 
tions from God, and to impart these to men, it is reasonable 
to conclude that he rendered a like service to the human soul 
of Christ, enabling it to receive all needed truth from his 
higher nature, —the Word. 

(c) To the language used in John v. 19, 20, 36; and Acts 
ii. 22; x. 38, which teach, it is said, that Christ’s power was 
limited in the same way, and to the same extent, as his 
knowledge. In reply to this, we remark, that his miracles of 
power appear to have been wrought by Jesus himself, but not 
apart from the Father and the Spirit, even as the world was 
made by the Logos at first, but not apart from the Father 
and Spirit. It was doubtless Christ’s aim, in the passages 
cited from John, to emphasize the inseparable unity of the 
Father and himself, and the utter absurdity of the Jewish 
charge, that he was speaking and acting without God, or apart 
from God. This he denies the possibility of. 

As a general objection to this view, we remark, that it 
supposes no proper union of deity and humanity in the person 
of Christ. He was God, and he was man: God, by virtue of 
the deity of his original nature; man, by virtue of the human 
properties and limitations which that nature took for a time 
_in lieu of the divine. According to this theory, it is scarcely 
proper to say, that he was God azd man, or God plus man; for, 
as a whole, he was God in a certain sense; and, as a whole, he 
was man in another sense: but he was neither God nor man, 
in the full meaning of these words. As another objection to 
this view, we observe, that it affirms a change in the Logos, 
which seems to be incompatible with his deity, and, if really 
so, is incredible. It is true, that great caution should be used 
in reasoning about the nature of God; but we are unable to 
leny all force to this objection. 

6. Theory of Thomasius. This differs from the foregoing, 
by teaching that, along with the depotentiated Word, Christ 
had a human soul, like that of any other man, sin excepted. 
Thus his human nature was complete; and the two souls, 
mysteriously united in one person, advanced part passu in 


200 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


knowledge and grace until the hour of his death on the cross. 
Nearly the same arguments are adduced in support of this 
theory and of the preceding; and nearly the same replies 
must be made to them. ; 

But to these may be-added several positive objections to 
them both. And (1) They appear to be inconsistent with the 
claims of Christ while on earth; for example, with his claim 
of knowledge (Matt. xi. 27; John v. 20); of power (Matt. 
xi. 27; John v. 19, 21); of authority (Matt. ix. 2-6); and of 
timeless being (John viii. 58). 

(2) They appear to be inconsistent with any resumption at 
divine attributes by Christ, until his mediatorial work is 
accomplished; for a resumption of divine attributes must 
be equivalent to laying aside human attributes, which will 
not take place before “the end,” nor even then (John v. 22, 
221278 Heb. ii. 18; iv, 155 Rev. xxi. a): 

(c) They appear to be inconsistent with any proper idea of 
the relation between essence and attributes. The doctrine of 
transubstantiation is no more incredible than this view of the 
humiliation of Christ; for the doctrine of transubstantiation 
simply asserts, that the essence is changed from the natural to 
the divine, while the attributes or accidents remain unchanged. 
Very suitably may such theories be characterized as “ magi- 
cal.” It is better to have no theory than to accept one of 
these. 

(7.) Theory of Dorner. This distinguished theologian holds 
that the incarnation was gradually accomplished. The divine 
Word at first communicated himself partially to the human 
nature of Jesus, and then in ever larger measure as that 
nature became able to receive him. 

At the outset, the will of the Logos was directed to the 
production of a theanthropic or holy nature, which should be 
called “Son of God” ;' and thenceforth, united with that 
nature, he knows and wills every act of it as his own. 


1“Entwickelungsgeschichte der Lehre von der Person Christi,” Zweiter 
Theil. s. 1271 sq. The passage is near the end of the last volume of the trans- 
lation into English. 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 201 


The eternal Word did not put himself, by the act of incar- 
nation, into a kind of swoon, from which he at last awoke to 
a simply finite and human consciousness; but he entered and 
made his own the life of human nature in Christ, enlarging 
the sphere of conscious fellowship and oneness pari passu 
with the development of that human nature. 

These are some of the theories which have been proposed 
concerning the incarnation and its effect upon the higher 
nature of Christ. They are none of them altogether satisfac- 
tory; though we are inclined to believe that the view ot 
Dorner is less objectionable than any of the others, unless it 
be that of Leo. 

It may be hazardous to say more; but we are partially sat- 
isfied with the following statement : — 

8. The divine Word so entered into personal uyion with 
human nature in Fesus Christ, that his theanthropic conscious- 
ness and experience embraced the action of both divine and 
human powers and susceptibilities. 

If his lower nature was truly human, it was finite, and 
therefore capable of growth; and the limits of his human 
intelligence must have been present to the consciousness of 

Jesus, as well as the perfection of his divine intelligence. 
What then may have been the law of his action as mediator 
between God and man? 

Possibly this: (g) That both his divine and his human facul- 
ties were concerned in whatever he did as the God-man. If 
so, the action of his higher nature was confined within the 
limits in which the action of the lower could take part. 
(6) That, in particular, the human intelligence of Christ 
apprehended all that he taught; for he taught as a thean- 
thropic being. (c) That the human faculties of Jesus shared 
the knowledge of the divine, as to all that his Messianic work 
required at any stage of its earthly progress. 

A view similar to this is suggested by Dr. Schaff, in 
Lange’s “Commentary” on John iv. 18,— “ Not that Christ 
was strictly omniscient in the state of humiliation (he himself 
disclaimed this, Mark xiii. 32); but. wherever it was needed for 


202 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


his mission of saving sinners and the interests of his kingdom, 
he could, by an act of his will, and in virtue of his vital and 
essential union with the omniscient Father, unlock the cham- 
bers of the past, or penetrate, by immediate intuition, to the 
utmost secrets of the human heart, and read the history 
which is indelibly recorded on the pages of memory.” 

In support of this view may be mentioned the following 
considerations :— 

(1) [t agrees with the prima facie import of many passages 
of the New Testament (for example, Matt. xi. 27; John v. 17, 
19, 20, 21, 26; viii. 58; x. 28-30; xiv. 9). The first of them 
is thus translated by Alford: “ All things are delivered unto 
me by my Father; and none certainly knoweth the Son but 
the Father ; neither doth any fully know the Father but the 
Son, and he to whomsoever the Son is minded to reveal him.” 
The verb aywacxw is properly translated, to know fully; for 
in the New Testament the simple verb is made intensive by 
the preposition. The second reads: ‘My Father worketh 
until now, and I work,” referring to supernatural action, like 
the cure of the impotent man. The third declares the action 
of the Father and the Son inseparable: “The Son can do 
nothing of himself, save what he seeth the Father doing; for 
what things soever the Father doeth, these also doeth the Son 
in like manner.” The fourth teaches that “the Father 
showeth the Son all things that himself doeth”; and the 
fifth, that the Son giveth life as truly as the Father; “for like 
as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even 
so the Son quickeneth whom he will.” The sixth affirms 
that, “as the Father hath life in himself, so did he give to the 
Son also to have life in himself.” Says Prof. Gess, an able 
advocate of theory No. 5, described above, “If this word of 
Jesus refers to his earthly life no less than to that which pre- 
ceded and followed it, the Son did possess the life of God 
while on earth; and all that we have said about the self-exina- 
nition of the Logos in becoming flesh would be overthrown.” 
It seems to us perfectly plain that this word of Jesus does 
refer to his earthly life, and overthrows the doctrine taught by 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 203 


_Gess. The next passage, as we have seen, declares the con- 
scious life of Christ to be, in some way, unoriginated and 
timeless. It is a remarkable declaration, “ Before Abraham 
was, 1am”; and it seems incompatible with the theory of a 
merely human consciousness in Christ. There was a divine 
side to his consciousness, flashing its glorious light on certain 
truths for the human side, that the God-man might testify 
directly of his higher life. Equally conclusive are the other 
texts, quoted above; but it is unnecessary for us to notice 
them separately. 

(2) lt ascribes te Christ a truly theanthropic experience. It 
supposes that in him the divine Word, as such, and with all 
his powers unabridged, entered into conscious, personal union 
with human nature, — Jotus iv suis, totus in nostris. And in 
no other imaginable way could a being truly divine shave per- 
sonal experience of human weakness and woe. To drop the 
divine consciousness and become human, and then to drop the 
human and become again divine, gives no such experience or 
fellowship; and this circumstance alone raises the theory 
before us to an immeasurable height above many of the 
preceding. 

(3) lt offers itself to the mind more readily than any other 
view. This might be proved, we think, by an appeal to the 
history of the Christian faith; but we are willing to have every 
one test it, by recalling the action of his own mind on the 
subject. 

To this last theory we look as the best expression yet given 
to the doctrine of the nature of the union of deity and 
humanity in the person of Christ. But we do not claim to 
understand fully the miracle of the incarnation, nor do we 
suppose that the view accepted by us as approximately cor- 
rect can be applied with perfect ease to all the sayings of 
Christ and his apostles. It denies any mutilation of the 
human, any latency or paralysis of the divine in Jesus Christ. 
This seems to be a great excellence, if the Scriptures agree 
with it; and it affirms the unity of his person, which is equally 
important, if taught by the Scriptures. Both the denial and 


204 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


the affirmation seem to us scriptural; though single expres- 
sions may be cited which seem at first inconsistent with one 
of them. 


Vv. EFFECT OF THE INCARNATION ON THE LOWER NATURE 
OF CHRIST. 


This topic may be treated with more brevity than the pre- 
ceding; yet it cannot be passed by in silence. For (2) The 
marvellous perfection of Christ’s character and development 
as man was due beyond question in some measure to the 
personal union of his human nature with the divine Word, 
And (0) Everything which relates to the genuineness of his 
humanity is singularly interesting to a large class of thought- 
ful men at the present time. 

It must, indeed, be admitted that religious speculation has 
tended, of late, to an almost exclusive consideration and 
assertion of the true humanity of Christ; but this is a reason 
for, rather than against, giving to it all the prominence which 
it deserves; and a reason for, rather than against, attempting 
to show how that humanity was affected by the incarnation, 

The following statements are suggested by the language of 
the sacred writers :— 

(1) That the human nature of Fesus, though derived from 
Mary, was purified from all moral evil, or bias to moral evil, 
by the Holy Spirit, at the moment of its union with the divine 
Word. This appears to be no more than a just inference, from 
the prediction of the angel Gabriel to Mary, as recorded by 
Luke i. 35: “The Holy Spirit will come upon thee, and the 
power of the Most High will overshadow thee; wherefore 
the holy one that is to be born will be called the Son of 
God.” — (Noyes.) 

But the immaculate conception of Christ does not, in the 
least, presuppose the immaculate conception of his mother. 


For, if the nature of Jesus could not be spotless without hav- . 


ing a spotless mother, neither could the nature of Mary be 
spotless without having a spotless mother; and so on, back 
to Adam. But if it was possible for his mother to have been 


— 


The Doctrine of Man. , 205 


conceived and born from sinful parents, without any taint of 
‘moral evil, then it was certainly possible for Jesus to be con- 
ceived and born of Mary, though she was herself sinful, with- 
out any taint of moral evil; and, of 42s immaculate conception, 
the words of Gabriel are sufficient proof, especially when 
taken in connection with the story of his life, and with the 
ample testimony to his freedom from all personal sin: while, 
of his mother’s immaculate conception, the Scriptures afford 
no proof whatsoever. 

The doctrine of Edward Irving, that the Logos entered into 
personal union with human nature in its fallen state, having a 
bias to moral evil, is also to be rejected as unscriptural. Yet 
three arguments are alleged in support of it; namely (a) That 
it is directly taught by Paul, in Rom. vili. 3: ‘God having 
sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.” If Paul’s 
language were “in sinful flesh,” the Irvingite theory would 
be plainly taught : but that is not his language; and the words 
which he does use may very well signify, that “ the flesh of 
Christ was /ze flesh of sin, inasmuch as it was flesh, but az/zke, 
inasmuch as it was not affected with sin.’ Says De Wette, 
“aaos apagtias is flesh (or human nature) possessed with sin; 
the apostle could not then have said zz flesh of sin, without 
making Christ partacer of sin; nor could he have said merely 
22 flesh ; for then the bond between the manhood of Jesus and 
sin would have been wanting. He says, then, zw likeness of 
Jlesh of sin; meaning !y that, he had a nature like sinful human 
nature, but had not himself a sinful nature.” 

(0) That it ts clearly implied in the susceptibility of Christ 
to temptation, and especially in his knowing by experience 
how to succor those who are tempted, —the latter being sin- 
ners... The argument is plausible, but not conclusive; for, if 
it be necessary to have a depraved nature, in order to feel the 
force of temptation, Adam and the angels must have been 
created with depraved natures. And, if it be necessary to have 
been in the moral condition of sinners who are tempted, in 
order to know how to succor them, Christ must have had not 


1 Heb. ii. 17, 18; iv. 15. 


206 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


only a sinful nature, but also a habit of sinning, to quality 
him for his work; but this no one will assert. 

(c) That it is implied in a correct view of the atonement. 
For human nature in its fallen state was summed up in the 
humanity of Christ, and in that humanity paid the just pen- 
alty for all its sin. But the idea that the human nature of 
Christ was the whole of human nature, in any other sense 
than that in which human nature is entire in any other man, 
is a mere fiction of the imagination. If he bore the penalty” 
of sin at all, it was not the penalty of his own personal sin, or 
sinfulness, but the penalty due to others for their sins. 
Bearing the penalty of his own sinfulness would not help 
them, unless it were to bear in turn the penalty of ¢heir sin- 
fulness. Thisis self-evident. If there was any thing vicarious 
in his suffering, it presupposes his holiness rather than his 
sinfulness. 

(2) That the human nature of Fesus was favored by the special 
presence of the Holy Spirit during his public ministry: This 
is proved by several expressions of the sacred record.’ Just 
what the relation of the Spirit’s work in the soul of Christ 
may have been to that of his higher nature is unrevealed; but 
from the office of the Spirit in the economy of salvation, — 
renewing, sanctifying, and preparing men for the reception 
of truth, — it may be inferred, with some probability, that the 
human soul of Christ was moved by the Spirit to desire 
and seek the very things which the incarnate Word desired 
and sought, thus contributing to the perfect unity of aim and 
spirit that distinguished Christ from all other men. 

(3) That the human nature of Fesus was helped forward in 
knowledge and virtue, by light which his divine nature wn- 
parted. This may be inferred from the circumstance, that it 
was the Word, the Revealer of truth, with whom this human 
nature was in personal union. The same consciousness which 
felt the needs and trials of his finite soul was illuminated by 
divine light from the Word. Most surely then would the 
Logos impart to the human faculties all the light which they 


1 Matt. iii. 16; iv.1; Lukeiv.1; Johniii. 34; Acts i. 2. 


~~ or ae 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 207 


needed at any time for intelligent participation in the work 


_ to be done, or the suffering to be borne. This may be nearly 


what Dorner means by a gradual incarnation, or communica- 
tion of himself to his humanity. 

In view of what has now been said of the effect of the 
incarnation on the divine and human natures of Christ, 
respectively, such passages as Mark xiii. 32; Luke ii. 52, and 
several othurs, do not appear to be altogether inexplicable. 
In his theanthropic work, both natures in the person of Christ 
were to participate; and therefore the possibilities of appro- 
priation by the lower nature furnished a moral limit to the 
action of the higher. That he should reveal his glorious 
perfections, on a scale determined by the ability of a holy 
human soul to appreciate his work, was, therefore, embraced 
in the humiliation of the divine Word. 


Il. THE WORK OF CHRIST AS MEDIATOR. 


Tais part of theology may be divided into three separate 
topics, namely :— 

I. Propitiation by Christ: especially the Saviour’s death, 
as related to the attitude and action of God towards sinners. 

II. Revelation by Christ: especially the moral influence 
of his humiliation and death on sinners. 

Ill. Government by Christ: especially redemption and 
judgment, as administered by him. 

I. No part of theology requires more profound and devout 
study at the present time than the first of these three topics: 
PROPITIATION BY CHRIST. 

For there are many who utterly deny that the death of 
Christ has any thing to do with God's readiness to save sin- 
ners. They reject the doctrine of a vicarious atonement as 
absurd." 

1 Martineau (J.) “Studies of Christianity,” p. 83 sq.; Ellis (G. E.) “A Half 
Century of the Unitarian Controversy,” p. 157 sq.; Ritschl (A.) “ Reconciliation 
and Justification”; Bushnell (H.) “The Vicarious Sacrifice grounded in Princi- 


ples of Universal Obligation,” “Atonement and Forgiveness”; Young (J.) 
“Life and Light”; Robertson (F. W.) “Sermons,” vol. I. p. 163 sq.; vol. IL 


Pars27 59> 


208 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


There are others, and not a few, who admit that the death 
of Christ has much to do with God’s readiness to save sinners, 
while they fail to see any reason why it should have such an 


influence. These accept the doctrine of the atonement, but 


as a deep mystery, as a divine expedient.! 


And there are others still who claim to see the best of 


reasons why the death of Christ should have the influence 
in question. These declare the doctrine of a vicarious atone- 
ment to be at once true and reasonable.” 

To ascertain which of these three classes of writers is 
correct, and to answer the: question, whether the death of 
Christ was necessary, on God’s part, in order to the gift of 
the Spirit and to the pardon of sins upon repentance, it will 
be desirable to consider a previous question, namely: Ave 
righteousness and benevolence one and the same in God? 

The theory which identifies them must be rejected for the 
following reasons : — 

1. This theory ts inconsistent with the common language 
and judgment of mankind. Everywhere men speak of up- 
rightness and benevolence as distinct qualities of character. 
There is probably no language which fails to express these 
qualities by different terms, no people which regard justice 
as one with grace. 


1 Park (E. A.) “ Atonement,” a number of treatises by different authors, in 
one volume; Campbell (J. McLeod) “The Nature of the Atonement and its 
Relation to the Remission of Sins, and Eternal Life”; South (R.) “Sermons,” 
I. p. 493; Dale (R. H.) “The Atonement”’; Schoeberlein (L.) “ Die Grundlehren 
des Heils entwickelt aus dem Princip der Liebe.” These works do not belong 
together as defending the same view; nor do they represent exactly the general 
statement of the text; yet they may be profitably read in connection with that 
statement. ; 

2 Anselm (St.) “Cur Deus Homo,” translated in “ Bib. Sac.,” vols. XI. XI1; 
Magee (W.) “On the Scriptural Doctrine of Atonement and Sacrifice”; Alex- 
ander (A. A.) “The Atonement”; Symington (W.) “The Nature, Extent, and 
Results of the Atonement”; Sweaton (G.) “‘The Doctrine of the Atonement as 
taught by Christ himself,” “The Doctrine of the Atonement as taught by the 
Apostles”; Crawford (T. J.) “The Doctrine of Holy Scripture respecting the 
Atonement”; Shedd (W. G. T.) “The Atonement a Satisfaction to the Ethical 
Nature of both God and Man,” “Bib. Sac.” vol. XVI.; Turretin (F.) “Dispu- 
tatio de Satisfactionis Christi Necessitate et Veritate,” IV. p. sq. 


Ts 
Pas 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 209 


2. This theory ts inconsistent with the customary language 
of Scripture. For this language makes a clear distinction 
between righteousness and goodness, —a distinction which is 
applied in almost numberless places to the attributes of God, 
and not unfrequently to those of man.— (See Rom. ii. 2-13; 
v. 7.) But it may be objected to this, that Christ himself 
refers the whole law to the one requirement of love. This is 
true; and he could do it, because the law was given for a 
practical purpose simply, the great obstacle to perfect virtue 
in men being a want of that love which the law requires. 
This he could do, not because love comprises, but because it 
conditions, all right actions. ; 

3., This theory ts tnconsistent with the clearest decisions 
of our moral judgment. The law of right, as revealed by 
conscience, recognizes a principle of obligation distinct from 
love; it requires justice before generosity. Suppose that A, 
B, and C are the only persons in the world; that A has a 
certain amount of property, which he can spare; that he 
owes it to B; but that C is in greater need of it. Love in 
the form of compassion says, help the most needy; but the 
intuition of right says, pay the debt; sz cuzque. More- 
over, if there were but one created being in the universe, and 
that being were to do wrong, God would condemn the wrong ; 
he cannot be supposed to look upon sin as he would look 
upon mere calamity. 

Starting with these principles, we add the following pre. 
liminary remarks :— 

(2) God’s opposition to sin is set forth, without exaggera- 
tion, by the penalty which he has affixed to it. A lighter 
penalty would not have agreed so well with his estimate and 
sense of the demerit of sin, and hence would not have so 
- truly revealed his moral character to men. 

(4) God’s moral nature is altogether good and right; and 
therefore his opposition to sin must always be perfectly right, 
both in feeling and in expression. 

(c) Hence his estimate and sense of the guilt of sin cannot 
diminish; nor can his expression of these be enfeebled; for 


210 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


he will not deny himself, by exchanging an expression once 
chosen for a feebler and less adequate one. 

(2) Yet he may, without absurdity, be supposed to cece 
one expression for another which exhibits with equal force 
and clearness his opposition to sin, and perhaps for one 
which sets forth this opposition with new and greater energy. 

(ec) The only substitute which seems at all adapted to the 
case is the suffering of another in behalf of the sinner; and 
so far as we can judge, in order to make the substitution 
right, this vicarious suffering must be endured voluntarily by 
a sinless being, and must not authorize the sinner’s pardon 
except on condition of repentance, and good security of future 
obedience. 

(f) The amount of vicarious suffering required in such a 
case may, perhaps, depend, in some measure, on the excel- 
lence of the sufferer in the sight of God. Should the Most 
High be pleased to connect this suffering in any way with 
his own person, its significance would thereby be vastly 
enhanced. 

(g) Christ suffered, according to the Scriptures, in such a 
way as to fulfil all these conditions. Hence, so far as we are 
able to see, his suffering may be a proper substitute for the 
sinner’s death. Reason has nothing decisive to urge against 
this conclusion. 

Says Dr. Shedd, “In the voluntary, the cordially offered 
sacrifice of the incarnate Son, the judicial nature of God, 
which by a constitutional necessity requires the punishment 
of sin, finds its righteous requirement fully met. Plenary 
punishment is inflicted upon One who is infinite, and there- 
fore competent; upon One who is finite, and therefore passi- 
ble; upon One who is innocent, and therefore can suffer for 
others; upon One who is voluntary, and therefore uncom- 
pelled.”’? 

These remarks will remove, it is hoped, from the mind all 
decided prejudice against the doctrine of propitiation by 
Christ; or, in other words, against the doctrine of an atone- 


1 “Bib. Sac.” vol. XVI. p. 743, 4- 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 211 


ment, which was prerequisite in the mind of God to the 
’ bestowment of renewing and forgiving grace upon sinners. 

But whether this be the result or not, whether the philos-: 
ophy of the atonement be comprehended or not, it is 
necessary for us to examine the testimony of Scripture as to 
the fact. 

And the sacred writers testify : — 

1. That propitiation was made for the sins of men by 
Christ in his blood or death (1 John ii. 2; iv. 10; Heb. ii. 17; 
Rom. iii. 24-26 (cf. Luke xviii. 13). 

What is meant by “propitiation”? Does it refer to the 
influence which the death of Christ has upon God, or to the 
influence which it has upon men? In answer to this question, 
we appeal : —! 

(1) Zo the classical use of idaoxopat, or propitiate. In classic 
writers, Josephus included, this verb signifies, to appease or 
make propitious, whether by sacrifice, or gift, or song; and 
the object of it is almost always a god. Herodotus, indeed, 
speaks of propitiating men, but only those whom one has 
injured, and only by paying them divine honors after death. 
Notice, however, that it is always the party which has been 
wronged and incensed that is said to be propitiated or 
placated. 

(2) To the use of this verb and its derivatives by writers of 
the New Testament. From the connection in which these 
words are employed, it is plain that God was conceived of as 
iendered propitious by the death of Christ; or that the exer- 


1 Funke (G.) “ Bezieht sich die Versohnung allein auf den Menschen oder auf 
Gott und den Menschen?” in St. u. Kr. 1842, 297 ff.; Schweitzer (A.) “Die 
Lehre des Apostel Pauius vom erlésenden Tode Christi von Gal. iii. 13, 14 aus 
betrachtet,” in St. u. Kr. 1858, 425. ff.; Munchmeyer (A. F. Q.) “Ueber den 
Zweck des Todes Jesu,” in St. u. Kr. 1845, 310 ff.; Reich (G.) “Ueber die 
Satisfactio Vicaria,” in St. u. Kr. 1844, 185 ff.; Schdberlein (L.) “Ueber die 
christliche WVersdéhnungslehre,” in St. u. Kr. 1845, 267 ff.; also s. v. “ Versoh- 
nung ” in Herzog Real-Encyklopiadie, and “ Die Grundlehren des Heils, entwickelt 
aus dem Princip der Liebe”; Thomasius (G.) “Christi Person und Werk,” 3 
Theil.; Ebrard (J. H. A.) “Die Lehre von der stellvertretenden Genugthuung 
in der heiligen Schrift begriindet ”; Gess (W. F.) “ Zur Lehre von Versoéhnung,” 
Jahrbiicher fiir Deutsche Theologie Bde. III. IV. 


212 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


cise of his grace towards the guilty was secured by that death, 

Note the language of 1 John ii..2; iv. 10. No one surely 
can suppose that the Advocate is with the Father, as a pro- 
pitiation, in order to render sinners favorable, gracious, or 
even loyal to God. Nor can any one rationally affirm, that 
the sacrifice of Christ renders all men well-disposed towards 
the Supreme Ruler; but everywhere in the Scriptures God 
is represented as displeased with men for their sins. The 
language which is used to express this displeasure is fearfully 
strong. Yet he loves them still, and offers them his favor in 
view of the death of Christ, which he accepts as a reason for 
turning away his wrath, and imparting his grace. 

In Heb. ii. 17, the verb is used in the middle voice but 
with an active sense, and is translated “to make reconcilia- 
tion,” namely, “for the sins of the people” ; and this may be 
explained, with Winer, as an elliptical expression, meaning 
‘to propitiate God for the sins of the people.” Moll observes 
correctly, that the sacred writers employ the word in question 
to denote an expiation which interposes between wrath and 
sin, so that “the latter is covered over.” 

But the language of Paul in Rom. iii. 24-26, is worthy of 
special study. It should be translated as follows: “ Being 
justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is 
in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation, 
through faith, in his blood, for the exhibition of his right- 
eousness, because of the passing bf of the sins formerly 
committed, in the forbearance of God, for the exhibition of 
his righteousness in the present time, that he may be just, 
and the justifier of him who is of faith in Jesus.” 

This passage has been called the “Acropolis of the 
Christian faith”; and it teaches, () That Christ was set 
forth in his blood by God as a propitiatory sacrifice ; (4) That 
this was done to illustrate the righteousness of God ; (c) That 
his righteousness must be thus illustrated, (1) because he had 
passed by, in his forbearance, sins committed before the 
coming of Christ; and (2) because he would justify all who 
should henceforth believe in Christ. 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 213 


Now it is obvious to every reader, that the setting forth of 
Christ in his blood is not here represented as propitiating 
men to God. It is conceived, rather, as something required 
to justify his propitious bearing towards sinners, as so con- 
spicuous an illustration of his righteousness that this would 
be forever unclouded, though he had forborne to inflict upon 
sinners the just penalty of their sins. 

According to the passage in Luke xviii. 13, the publican 
did not pray that his own heart might be changed and made 
friendly to God, but rather that God would be gracious to 
him, though a sinner. He assumed that God must be recon- 
ciled to the sinner, and not (merely) the sinner to God. 
Besides, if the place and the result of his prayer are duly con- 
sidered, it will be natural to paraphrase it thus: ‘“ O God, be 
thou propitiated to me a sinner, by the sacrifices for sin 
offered in this thime house!” 

(3) Zo the use of this and similar terms, with es, to 
sacrifice, in the Old Testament. The word iiaoryjguov which is 
translated “propitiation,” in Rom. ili. 25, is employed by the 
Seventy to denote the lid of the ark, which was sprinkled 
with blood on the great day of atonement. The Hebrew 
name of this lid was Kapporeth, or cover; and the Hebrew 
verb from which it was formed signified, literally, Zo cover, 
but was translated éfiaoxouou, by the Seventy, the preposition 
tz being simply intensive. 

It may then be assumed, without argument, that the act of 
covering, expressed by the Hebrew verb when applied to 
sacrifice, was not physical, but moral or spiritual; and that, 
it the, Seventy did not wholly mistake its import, it served in 
some way to render God propitious to his sinful subjects, oz 
his sinful subjects well-disposed to God. Is it necessary to 
prove that the former was its true meaning? It would seem 
as if no man who had read the Pentateuch could entertain a 
doubt of this. 


1Qehler (G. F.) I. p. 413 sq.3 II. p. 36 sq.; Fairbairn (P.) “Typology ot 
Scripture”; Riehm (F.) “ Der Begriff der Siihne im Alten Testament,” in the 
“Studien und Kritiken,” erstes Heft, 1877; Kurtz (J. H.) “The Sacrificial Wor 


214 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


Yet it will be wise to study the use of the Hebrew verb by 
means of several texts, There are two passages, at least, in 
which it appears to have a sense analogous to that which it 
has in sacrifice, though without any religious bearing — (Gen. 
xxxii. 21; Prov. xvi. 14). And there are many places where 
it is used to describe the grace of God, or the effect of acts 
or sacrifices not embraced in the prescribed worship of the 
temple. This unceremonial or extra-ceremonial application 
of the word is instructive (Ps. lxv. 4; Ixxviii. 38; 1 Sam. 
iii, 14; Isa. vi. 7; xxii. 14; xxvul. 9; Dans ix) eager 
6; Jer. xvill. 23; Ps, Ixxix. 9; Ezek. xvi. 635) 0ime 
sq.; xxxv. 33; Deut. xxi. 8; xxxii. 43; 2 Samia 
xxxll. 30; Num, xxv, 13; Ex. xxx. 11—163) Nie 
2\Chiront xxix. 245 xx) TS) 

With the foregoing should be compared those passages 
which describe by this word the aim of thegbloody sacrifices 
prescribed for the temple service of the Israelites (Lev. xvii. 
DT pcixs 7,8, 05> Kviz 16; 18; '20)'39): 

And also the passages in which this term is employed to 
signify the effect of sprinkling the blood of the sin-offering 
on the horns of the altar, or on the mercy-seat (Lev. xvi. 6, 
JI, 17, 24; iv. 20, 26, 31, 35; vi 13, 18; xix: 22 
36,37 + xx 103 Lev. will 44, 25): 

From Lev. xvii. 10, II, it appears that propitiation through 
sacrifice was ordained by God for his people, and was accom- 
plished by covering ritually the object affected by sin. The 
blood of an animal, slain for the purpose, was chosen for this 
emblematical cover; because the blood is the seat of life, and 
shed blood a natural sign or symbol of death (Lev. xvii. 11). 

That the death of the animal was included in the ritual 
act, and presupposed in the effect of the sprinkled blood, may 
be inferred from two circumstances ; namely, (¢) That the 
slaying of the animal is often and formally prescribed, as only 
an important part of the sacrificial rite would be ; and (4) That, 


ship of the Old Testament,” translated in “Clark’s Foreign Theol. Library”; 
“Bib. Sac.” vol. XIX. p. 1 sq. “ Jewish Sacrifices with Particular Reference to 
the Sacrifice of Christ.” 


: 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 215 


by partaking of bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper, Chris- 
tians declare the death of Christ; yet Christ was made an 
offering for sin, and his propitiatory sacrifice was typified by 
the sin-offering of the Mosaic ritual. 

But against this view it has been objected, (2) That the 
word by which the slaying of the victim is expressed is not 
the proper one to denote judicial punishment; it means to 
slaughter, rather than to put to death. 

This objection appears to have little force; for certainly 
the life of the victim was taken; and the word employed is 
the one commonly used to signify the killing of an animal. 
In like manner the Saviour is said to have been “ crucified,’ 
rather than “put to death.” He “gave his life a ransom for 
many,’ yet he “died for all.” 

(6) That the slaying of the animal was executed by the 
sinner himself, rather than by the priest who was the repre- 
sentative of the punishing God, and must have performed this 
act if it had stood for the penalty of sin. 

This objection is by no means conclusive. For the penitent 
sinner might well confess the justice of the divine law by 
inflicting its penalty on his substitute. Even Christ died by 
the hands of sinners, and he was the great sacrifice; yet 
this was done by “the determinate counsel and foreknowl- 

edge of God” (Acts ii. 23). 

(ce) That the slaying of the victim is not made so prominent 
as it would have been, had it been the essential act in the 
propitiation. 

But it is very often mentioned, and was always attested by 
presenting the blood before God. The blood was the sign of 
life given up in death. 

In confirmation of our view, the following particulars may 
be enumerated: (1) That this offering was always brought for 
sin, and often for a particular sin; (2) That it was named 
“ Sin,’ because of its exclusive reference to the same; 
(3) That the offerer, before slaying his victim, laid his hands 
on its head, in token of imparting to it his sin; (4) That 
more prominence was given in this kind of sacrifice to the 


216 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


sprinkling of the blood than in any other; and (5) That the 
end secured by this propitiation was the forgiveness of the 
offerer’s sin (Ex. iv. 5). 

Penitence and confession were not enough; the sin-offering 
must be presented, and then the sin could be forgiven. The 
displeasure of God ceased when that was offered. 

Moreover, it is admitted by Oehler and Riehm that the 
idea of vicarious punishment was included in bloody sacrifice 
apart from the temple worship. ‘ Evidently the punishment 
of death incurred by the manslayer is executed symbolically 
on the heifer,” says the former, on Deut. xxi: 1-9. 

Nearly all interpreters agree, that the blood of the sin- 
offering is conceived of as interposed between God and the 
sinner; so that, looking on the blood, God is gracious to the 
sinner. The propitiation, therefore, affects the attitude of 
God towards the sinner. 

But it must be borne in mind, that the Mosaic sacrifices for 
sin had no respect to violations of the moral law, as such. 
There was no provision for pardon through sacrifice for such 
sins as idolatry, blasphemy, murder, cursing of parents, man- 
stealing ; or for heart-sins, such as anger, malice, hatred, pride, 
avarice, want of love to God and man. The bloody offerings 
of the Jewish religion only availed to secure pardon for 
infractions of the civil or ceremonial law. They only “sanc- 
tified to the purifying of the flesh.’’? 

Thus they illustrated, within the sphere of temporal relations 
and an earthly kingdom, the principles of the divine govern- 
ment within the sphere of eternal relations and a spiritual 
kingdom. Thus principles were taught, hopes inspired, and 
moulds of language prepared which belong to a higher 
economy, but no more: the shadow could not give the sub- 
stance, though it may help us to understand the substance. 
And the fact that, in the sin-offering, the death of the animal 
took the place of the death due to the offerer, for his sin, so 
meeting and ratifying the claims of righteousness, proves that 
the same is true on a higher plane of the death of Christ; as 


1 See Heb. ix. 13, 14. 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 217 


sacrificial, propitiatory, it took up into itself and met the 
claims of eternal righteousness for sinners. And so we are 
‘led to say :— 

2. That propitiation was effected by the death of Christ, 
because this was an illustration of the righteousness of God. 

Reference must be made once more to Rom. iii. 24-26. 
The language of this passage renders forever vain any 
attempt to limit the need of the atonement to its moral 
influence over men; for the apostle distinctly specifies the 
exhibition of God’s righteousness as a proximate end of 
Christ’s death: And he declares that this exhibition was 
rendered necessary by God’s treatment of sinners both before 
and since the time of Christ, by his forbearing to punish sins 
committed before the death of Christ, and by his accepting 
as righteous, since that event, sinners who believe in Jesus, — 
a course of action which must be complemented by the atone- 
ment, in order that God may be, and may be known to be, a 
righteous moral governor of men. 

We conclude, then, that the atonement took up into itself 
and expressed the judicial righteousness, as well as the love 
of God. And, if the sufferings of Christ were distinctively an 
exhibition of God’s righteousness, they must have been in 
some way an exercise of it. They must be traceable to his 
love of moral rectitude and opposition to sin, as they cannot 
be traced to his mere wisdom, or benevolence, or power. 
Says Dr. Hodge: “The atonement is an exhibition. of God’s 
purpose to maintain his law and inflict its penalty,.... 
because it involves the execution of the penalty. It is this 
which gives it all its power. It would be no exhibition of 
justice, if it were not an exercise of justice; it would not 
teach that the penalty of the law must be inflicted, unless it 
was inflicted.”? The word “illustration” seems to unite the 


1 We refer also to the following discussions of the atonement : Wardlaw (R.) 
“Systematic Theology,” Vol. II. 332-483; ‘“‘ New Englander,” 1864, “ Atone- 
ment,” and 1865, “Atonement as the Basis of Redemption”; “Methodist 
Quarterly,” 1871, ‘ Vicarious Atonement.” 

2 “Princeton Essays,” “First Series” p. 319; Gurlitt. (J. F. R.) “Studien zur 
Erklarung der évdevétg rg dixacoobvy¢, Rom. iii. 25” in St. u. Kr. 1840, 930 ff. 


218 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


two ideas of “exercise”? and “exhibition,” in the case of a 
divine attribute ; and we have therefore made use of it in our 
second proposition. 

It may be added, in this place, that the atonement is none 
the less an illustration of the denevolence of God, because it is 
an illustration of his rightcousness ; for, had it not been for 
the benevolence of God, he might have illustrated his right- 
eousness by inflicting on men the just punishment for their 
sins, without the death of his Son; just as, on the other hand, 
he might, had it not been for his righteousness, have illus- 
trated his benevolence by renewing, pardoning, and saving 
guilty men, wethout the death of his Son. Hence the whole 
force of Christ’s passion goes to reveal both the righteousness 
and the benevolence of God. The end sought proves the 
latter; the means employed, the former. 

“Tf the question were, Why did God give his Son to die for 
sinners, rather than leave them to perish? .... The answer 
would be, Because he loved them. But if the question be, 
Why did he give his Son to be an atonement for sinners, 
rather than save them without one? The answer would be, 
Because he loved righteousness 

3. That propitiation was effected by the death of Christ; 
because this was suffered by him voluntarily, as the penalty due 
to men for their sins. In support of this proposition, we 
appeal :— 

(1) Zo those passages of Scripture which affirm the necessity 
of Christ's death (Matt. xvi. 21; xvii. 12; Mark viii. 31; Luke 
1x.-22; xxiv. 46; xxii. 37; Heb. vili. 3 (cf. ix. I2=14)G ae 
xxii. 28; Rom. viii. 32). By simply putting together the two 
facts, that death is the penalty of sin, and that Christ, though 
holy, must needs die in order to save sinners, we are led to 
the statement just made. Or rather the singular emphasis 


1 Fuller (A.) “ Works,” Vol. II., p. 696; Says Zwingle (U.) “Justitia require- 
bat expiationem, misericordia veniam, venia novam vitam. . .. Mixtz sunt 
igitur jnstitia et misericordia, ut hzc hostiam daret, illa vero acciperet pro 
universorum scelerum expiatione.” Niemeyer (H. A.) “ Collectio Confessionum,’ 
&c., pp. 40, 41. 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 219 


laid by the sacred writers on the death of Christ, when put 
side by side with the biblical doctrine of death being the 
divinely-ordained penalty of sin, confirms our proposition. 

(2) To passages which speak of the death of Christ as being 
the death or penalty of those for whom he died (2 Cor. Vv. 
15, 21; Gal. ili. 13). The first of these passages should be 
translated: ‘If One died for all, then all died;’’ meaning that, 
in the person of their representative and substitute, they had 
suffered the penalty of sin prescribed by the law; and it only 
remained for them to accept the act of their substitute in 
humble faith. 

“We must remember,” says Usteri on the next passage, 
“that Paul looked upon death as the penalty of sin; and 
therefore the death of the sinless Christ must appear to him 
an assumption of our punishment.” 

The word “curse” in the third passage, evidently refers to 
the punishment of sin denounced by the law, even as the 
apostle had just testified: “Cursed is every one that con- 
tinueth not in all things which are written in the book of the 
law to do them.” Hence these passages warrant our third 
statement. 

And they are confirmed by such as follow (namely, 1 Peter 
lili. 18; Rom. iv. 25; Gal. i. 4; 1 Cor. xv. 3). The apostles 
had in mind, without doubt, actual sins. They were not 
thinking of the moral influence of Christ’s death upon the 
hearts of men, but upon the relation of that death to sins 
already committed: for they do not say that Christ was 
delivered for our regeneration, but rather for our offences; 
they do not teach that he died for our sanctification, but 
rather for our sins. 

(3) Yo passages which teach that Christ in his death bore 
the sins of men* (Heb. ix. 28; 1 Peter ii. 24; Isa. lil. passzm ; 
(cf. Lev. v. 17; xxiv. 15; Num. xiv. 34). ‘The phrase “to 
bear sins” is used in the Old Testament figuratively, to 


1 “Bib. Sac.” XXXIL, pp. 475-497, “The New Testament view of Christ as 
bearing sin”; “Bib. Sac.” XXX., pp. 422-429, “The Meaning of 83,” both 
articles by W. H. Cobb. 


220 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


express the idea of responsibility for them, and so of suffering 
the penalty which they merit. Many of the best authorities 
make it signify “to feel the guilt, or bear the punishment of 
sin:” but we would not separate these two; they naturally go 
together. 

In the second passage cited by us, the expression, “in his 
body,” points to that part of his nature as suffering death on 
the cross, but not in such a way as to exclude mental agony 
(cf. 1 Peter iv. 1). With the first two may also be compared 
John i. 29; 1 John ii. 2; Rev. v. 9. 

The fifty-third chapter of Isaiah is descriptive of Christ’s 
mediatorial work. Portions of it are applied to Christ in the 
New Testament; and it is impossible to find any other object 
of which this language is, from first to last, descriptive. 
Again, this prophecy represents the suffering of Christ as 
vicarious, expiatory. Its language admits of no other satis- 
factory explanation. Moreover, this meaning is found in it 
by nearly all who refer it to Christ. And, lastly, the fact and 
principle of vicarious suffering are taught here by the admis- ~ 
sion of many who do not concede any reference to Christ; 
for example, Knobel. 

It may be added in confirmation of the general view of 
Christ’s death which has been taken, to wit, that it conditions, 
as well as reveals God’s grace to men: — 

(4) That the propitiation effected by the death of Christ 
removes ay obstacle existing in the mind of God to the exercise 
of his saving grace.’ In support of this position, we refer: — 

(1) To passages which represent Christ as the source of salva- 
tion to men (for example, Acts iv. 12; John iii. 36; x. 7-18). 
The first of these passages is very clear,—‘ And the salvation 
is not in any other; for neither is there any other name 
under heaven, which is given among men, in which we must 
be saved.” It is quite evident that Peter intends to affirm 
the dependence of all mankind upon Christ for salvation. 
He addresses the Sanhedrin, saying, in his name we must be 


1 Pendleton (J. M.) “A Treatise on the Atonement of Christ”; Jenkyn (T. W.) 
“The Extent of the Atonement in its Relation to God and the Universe.” 


The Doctrine of Salvation. — 221 


saved ; “this is the only alternative, for God has appointed no 
other way of salvation” (Hackett, nearly) for any of the race 
of mankind to which we belong. 

Can the apostle be supposed to mean that the moral influ- 
ence of Christ is the only saving power? Did that influence 
beget faith in the ancient patriarchs? Did it heal the man at 
the gate Beautiful of the temple, —an event which suggested 
the great salvation given by him, and by him only? This 
view of the expression seems to us untenable; and the only 
other view that merits a thought is the one which recognizes 
Christ as having done and suffered that in consideration of 
which repenting sinners can be saved. The other passages 
can only be explained satisfactorily in the same way. 

(2) To passages which represent Christ as the source of 
repentance (for example, Acts v. 31): “ Him God exalted as 
a Prince and a Saviour to his right hand, to give repentance 
unto Israel,” compared with Acts ii. 33: “Therefore, having 
been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received the 
promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father, he hath poured 


_ out this, which ye now see and hear.” Doubtiess “pouring 


out the Spirit” and “ giving repentance to Israel” were closely 
connected in the apostle’s mind, — the former pointing out the 
special agency employed by the Saviour, and the latter, the 
chief result of that agency. No direct reference is made in 
either of them to the moral power of Christ’s earthly life, as 
producing repentance, or to the story of his patient death, as 
subduing rebellion in the selfish will. 

(3) To passages which represent Christ as the source of par- 
don for sins (for example, Acts v. 31; xii. 38; Eph. i. 7; 
Col. i. 14). Comment is unnecessary to show that the for- 
giveness of sins was inseparably connected, according to the 
belief of the apostles, with Christ, and indeed with his blood. 
Was it because they put the persuasive power of the cross so 
high? This view of the case is not brought forward by them. 

Besides, pardon is distinguished in the first two passages 
from repentance and faith; and the latter are conceived of es 
antecedent to and conditions of the former. Those who 


22%»; Manual of Systematic Theology. 


repent and believe are forgiven. By separating the inward 
change in man from the pardoning act of God, and tracing the 
latter, as well as the former, to Christ, they teach that his 
atonement was more than,a moral influence on the hearts of 
men, — that it was a reason why God should forgive the penitent. 

Moreover, the sacred writers speak almost always of a 
remission or forgiveness of szzs, using the plural and not the 
singular ; had they been thinking of a work on the heart, mney 
would certainly have used the singular. 

(4) Lo passages which represent Christ as the source of justi- 
fication (for example, Acts xiii. 39; Rom. v. 8, 9, 19; iii. 24, 
26). Justification is a judicial act, declaring one to be rectus 
in curia, absolving him from the charge of guilt. To prove 
this we appeal to such passages as the following (Deut. xxv. 1; 
Isa. v. 22, 23; 1. 8; Prov. xvii. 15; 1 Kings viii. 31, 32; and 
Matt. xii. 36, 37; Rom. ii. 12, 13, 16; 1 Cor. iv.4; Rom. viii. 33; 
also Luke x. 29; xvi. 15; vii. 29,35; Matt. xi. 19). And if Godis 
one who “justifieth the ungodly,” and Christians are “ justified 
in the blood of Christ,’ — that is, have in his blood the source 
of their justification, — it follows that their moral excellence or 
obedience is not that in consideration of which they are 
acquitted and accepted of God, but rather the atonement of 
Christ ; and therefore his atonement has a Godward as well 
as a manward efficacy. 

(5) Zo passages which represent Christ as interceding with 
God for his people (for example, Rom. viii. 34; 1 John ii. 1, 2; 
Heb. vii. 25; vili. 26). According to these testimonies, the 
sacred writers looked upon the presence of Christ in heaven 
as a constant plea for the favor of God to believers, as an all- 
sufficient reason for the bestowal of grace upon the followers 
of Jesus; and they saw in Christ such a plea, because he had 
offered himself a sacrifice for the sins of the people. This of 
itself is decisive as to the Godward influence of the atonement. 

(6) To passages which teach that, by the death of Christ, the 
human race was putin sucha relation to God that he could treaé 
it with favor, instead of wrath (for example, Rom. v. 9, 10; 
2 Cor. v. 19, 20). The former of these reads thus: “ Much 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 223 


more then, having now been justified in his blood, we shall be 
saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, 
we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much 
more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved in his life.” 
The second of these verses manifestly reproduces and confirms 
the argument of the first; but the first speaks of justification, 
not as being found or founded in repentance, but rather in the 
blood of Christ, and of salvation from the wrath to come as 
the sure result of justification in that blood. For salvation is 
not rooted primarily in human action, but in divine grace. 

The apostle then confirms this statement by another in the 
same line of thought: “ For if, when we were the objects of 
God’s wrath (like rebels whom the king counts as enemies), 
we were put in a condition to receive his favor, by the death 
of his Son, how much more, having been put in that condition, 
shall we be saved in his life.” — (For the sense of the word 
“enemies,’ see Rom. xi. 28; and for the sense of the word 
“reconciled,” Matt. v. 24; 1 Sam. xxix. 4, Jos. Antiq. v. 2, 8.) 

In the second passage, the message given to the apostles for 
man is summed up as showing “ How that God in Christ 
reconciled the world to himself, not imputing to them their 
transgressions,” &c.; that is, by the death of his Son, God has 
removed every obstacle on his part to harmony between him- 
self and mankind, and now calls upon them to accept his grace. 
If there be any more separation, it must be due to. their reject- 
ing peace, and choosing wrath. 

5. The result we have gained receives further confirmation 
from the prominence given by the apostles to fazth in Christ, 
as the subjective condition or medium of justification (John iii. 
POwio-.30> xcts Xvi, 31; iii. 16; xxvi. 18; Rom. i. 17; 
Wi2e25,20; Vv. 1; Gal. ii. 16; iti. 8, 24, 26) 

We remark: — 

(1) By requiring men to have fear, or repentance, or faith, 
or love, the word of God requires them to have all these; for 
the exercise of any one of them implies a moral nature disposed 
to exercise them all. 

(2) The relative prominence given by the word of God to 


224 Manual of Systematic Theology. 3 


one or another of these subjective conditions of life will be 
found to vary somewhat with the amount and character of the. 
truth already revealed at any particular time. 

(3) The instructions delivered by Christ and his aootian 
may be presumed to lay special emphasis on that which is 
most essential and fundamental in piety. 

(4) These instructions assign a very marked pre-eminence 
to faith in Christ crucified, as the condition of pardon and life. 
To illustrate, the following table shows in the first column how 
many times petevodw and peteévoue together occur in each book of 
the New Testament, and in the second column how many 
times motevo and miots occur. 


Matt. 7 19 John o 98 I Cor. o 16 Eph. vo. corr 
Mark B20) Acts intemss2 2 (Gor 319 Phil eon a0 
Luke 14 20 Rom. 1 58 Gal. © 20 Cols fornia 
1 & 2 Thess. 22 Sita OmNErO James °o 19 Jude o 7 


1 Tim. O 22 Philem. 2 1&2 Pete Rev. 12 4 
2) ime L9 Heb. 3 33 123 Johno 11 Total 56 482 


For these reasons, we believe that the atonement is revealed 
to us by the Word of God, as that tx consideration of which 
renewing and forgiving grace is bestowed on all who are saved. 

Bishop Butler, in general but unambiguous language, in- 
dorses this view of the atonement as scriptural: “ The doctrine 
of the gospel appears to be, not only that he taught the efficacy 
of repentance, but rendered it of the efficacy which it is by 
what he did and suffered for us, that he obtained for us the 
benefit of having our repentance accepted unto eternal life; 
not only that he revealed to sinners that they were in a 
capacity of salvation, and how they might obtain it, but more- 
over that he put them into this capacity of salvation by what 
he did and suffered for them.” —“ Analogy,” II. c. v., p. 213. 

But against the doctrine which has now been set forth, and 
which puts such stress upon the propitiatory death of Christ 
in its relation to the grace of God, it has been objected : — 

(1) That his own words show that his work was finished 
before his death.— (See John xvii. 4; xix. 28-30.) In reply 
to this objection, it may be said, that Jesus refers in the lan- 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 225 


guage preserved in the former passage to his work in educating 
the disciples ; and that he declares in the words of the latter 
the last prophecy concerning himself to be fulfilled, and, per- 
haps, the anguish of death to be past. As he uttered the 
words, “It is finished,” he ceased to withstand by divine 
power the causes which would bring death, and passed, by 
the separation of soul and body, into rest. From that moment 
his relation to dying was passive; his proper work was done. 

Against our doctrine it has been urged (2) That death, the 
penalty of sin, is chiefly spiritual, being a loss of blessed 
fellowship with the Most High, together with a sense of his 
displeasure, aggravated by remorse and despair, and that Christ 
could not have experienced these. This objection once appeared 
to us insurmountable; but for a long time it has ceased to 
have that appearance ; and for the following reasons : — 

(1) It is not biblical, but purely rational. It rests for sup- 
port on the assumed fact, that remorse can only be felt for 
one’s own sin. But this fact is not a self-evident truth, nor 
can it be established by any process of demonstration; for it 
pertains to the realm of actual life in which there are myste- 
ries and seeming contradictions unknown to the realm of pure 
thought. 

(2) Beings who have a like spiritual nature can realize and 
bear the spiritual sufferings of one another. And “ bearing 
another’s woe” is sympathy or compassion, when either of 
these words is used in its deepest sense; it is suffering w7th 
another, — enduring what his spirit endures, sharing, not his 
bodily ill, but the feeling which that ill excites; not his sin 
and guilt, but the spiritual state, the remorse and fear conse- 
quent upon them. Owing to the imperfection of their knowl- 
edge and love, the sympathy of men with one another is only 
partial, and not at all commensurate with that of Christ. 
For — 

(3) Christ’s human nature was virtually perfect in knowledge 
and love. It had not, to be sure, all knowledge; but it had at 


1Herzog ‘‘ Real-Encyklopadie,” s. v. Versohnung, Bd. XVII. s. 128; Streaud 
(W.) “‘The Physical Cause of the Death of Christ.” 


226 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


every moment all the knowledge requisite to the complete 
performance of its work for that moment. And, for practical 
ends, this was as good as omniscience. His love, too, was 
equal to his knowledge; so that all the conditions for absolute 
sympathy met in his person. When, therefore, we read of his 
agony of soul in the garden and on the cross, culminating in 
the feeling expressed by the cry, “ My God, my God, why hast 
thou forsaken me?” it is not difficult to believe that he expe- 
rienced the bitterness of remorse and the horror of being 
deserted of God." 

Without professing to have set forth z/e way, and the only 
way, in which Christ actually bore the penalty due to men for 
their sins, — without asserting that Christ bore just the amount 
of suffering which awaited sinners, unredeemed, in eternity, 
and without.overlooking the dignity of his person, which gave 
inestimable value to his death, we think @ way has been indi- 
cated by which he could have borne penal woe; and if so, 
however different in some of its elements may have been 
the actual suffering of soul endured by him from that which 
we have suggested, the objection to our doctrine has been 
sufficiently met. 

The following words of Dr. Bruce deserve to be quoted in 
this place: “ Looking, then, into the Scriptures with unbiased 
mind, in order to find out the elements of value in our Lord’s 
atoning work, as estimated by the wisdom of the omniscient 
Spirit, we observe that emphasis is laid on at least four things: 
first, the dignity of the sufferer; second, his obedience to his 
Father's will; ¢zzrd, his dove to sinners; and fourth, his 
sufferings themselves.” “The value of Christ’s sacrifice was 
equal to his divine dignity, multiplied by his perfect obedience, 
multiplied by his infinite love, multiplied by suffering in 
body and soul carried to the uttermost limit of what a sinless 
being could experience.” ' 

But a further question may now be raised, namely: Was 
the holy life of Jesus co-ordinate in efficacy with his atoning 


1Schéberlein (L.) “Die Grundlehren des Heils entwickelt aus dem Princip 
der Liebe,” s. 92 ff. 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 227, 


death, or only prerequisite to the worth of the latter? In 
other words, Was his acf¢zve obedience vicarious, as well as his 
passive? Both Lutheran and Calvinistic theologians of the 
old school pronounce his active obedience vicarious; while the 
new school theologians generally deny this, and regard his 
holy life as strictly personal and prerequisite to the efficacy of 
his suffering for others.’ The view of the former is clearly 
stated by Marsh on the “Evidence and Nature of the Chris- 
tian Religion.” “Christ chose to do all that it became us to 
do before we had fallen, and to suffer all that it became us to 
suffer after we had fallen; and thus, in both respects, though 
in no way bound by it, to exhibit a perfect and living example 
of what the law of God requires from his creatures.” 

In favor of the view that his active, as well as passive 
obedience was vicarious, reference may be made :— 

1. Lopassages which emphasize the voluntariness of Christ's 
death (for instance, Phil. ii. 8; Heb. v. 8; x. 5 sq.; John x. 
17, 18; 2 Cor. v.14; Gal. i.4; ii. 20); for, by emphasizing the 
voluntariness of his death, they justify the old dictum, “ Actio 
ejus fuit passiva et passio activa.” 

2. To the plain declaration of the apostle in Rom. v. 19: 
“For, as by the disobedience of the one man, the many were 
made sinners, so also by the obedience of the one the many 
shall be made righteous.” At first sight this language appears 
to be conclusive; but it should be borne in mind, that the act 
of obedience here meant was the voluntary death of Christ, and 
that the word “obedience” may have been chosen to denote 
this act because of the fine avtithests which it makes to 
“disobedience.” 

3. Lo passages which assert the union of believers with 
Christ (for example, 1 Cor. i. 30; Eph. iv. 15, 16; John xv. 
I sq.); for they seem to make Christ the representative of 


ISee Hodge (A. A.) “Outlines of Theology,” p. 300; Knapp (G. C.) “ Lectures 
on Christian Theology,” Lec. CXV. p. 405 sq.; Park (E. A.) “ Atonement,” 
including several treatises by adherents of the New England Theology; Heppe ' 
(H.) “Die Dogmatik der evangelisch-reformirten Kirchen,” s. 325; Thomasius 
(G.) “Chr sti Person und Werk,” III. 1, s. 69 sq. 


228 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


Christians in obedience, and the source of their holiness. 
These last statements of the Word of God strongly support 
the view in question, and justify us, perhaps, in regarding it 
as true. 

Still another question must be briefly considered in this 
connection: For whom did Christ make his life a propitiatory 
offering? For all mankind, or for all the elect? Or did he 
suffer, with different ends in view, for the elect, and for all 
men?! Turning to the Word of God for light, we learn that 
Christ died, — 

I. Zo effect the sulvation of all the elect. His suffering was 
to be specially rewarded by their eternal purity, love, blessed- 
ness, and homage (John x. II, 15, 26—28; xi. 52; Eph. v. 253 
John xvii. 19; Rom. viii. 32 ; John vi. 39, 40; xvii.2; Eph.i. 4; 
1 Tim. iv. 10). 

Hence (1) God purposed from the first to save certain per- 
sons of our race. (2) These persons were given to Christ, in 
a special sense, to be his flock; and (3) he had their actual 
salvation particularly in view when he laid down his life. 

_ Il. Zo remove every objective hinderance to the salvation of 
mankind in general. In other words, to provide for their par- 
don on condition of faith (1 John ii. 2; 1 Tim. ii. 1-6; Heb. 
ii 9; 2 Cor. v. 15, 19, 20; 2 Pet. 0. 1;. John iu Gee 

Notes. 1Johnii. 2 (cf. iv.14; 1 Tim.iv.10; and Johni. 29; 
vi. 51): aouds, propitiation, refers to Christ as himself the 
atoning sacrifice for sin. The phrase, “for the whole world,” 
is equivalent to “for the sins of the whole world”; and the 
expression, “whole world,” must here signify all mankind; 
(1) because zdcpog, used of men, naturally includes all, unless its 
meaning is in some way restricted; (2) because 7met*gav and 
xoouey are here contrasted, — the one referring to Christians, 


1Jenkyn (I. W.) “ The Extent of the Atonement”; Barnes (A.) “ The Atone- 
ment in its Relations to Law and Moral Government”; Griffin (E. D.) “An 
Humble Attempt to reconcile the Differences of Christians respecting the 
Extent of the Atonement”; Park (E. A.) “Atonement: Discourses and Trea- 
tises,” giving for the most part what is sometimes called the New England Theory 
of the Atonement. The writers, besides Dr. Park, are Jona. Edwards, the younger, 
J. Smalley, J. Maxcy, N. Emmons, E. D. Griffin, C. Burge, and W. R. Weeks. 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 229 


and the other to all men; (3) because the adjective odov is 
manifestly emphatic. 

Heb. ii. 9: za»tog must here signify every one of our race, or 
very believer of our race. The former is the natural mean- 
ing, and should therefore be preferred. 2 Peter ii. 1 (cf. Luke 
vil, 30; xix. 44; Acts xiii. 46; 2 Cor. ii. 15). For the mean- 
ing of éyogatm with a personal object, see 1 Cor. vi. 20; vii. 23; 
Rev. v. 9; xiv. 3, 4. The participle with its object is prefixed 
to deonozyy, in order to emphasize their guilt ; and it shows that 
Christ purchased by his blood some who will deny him and 
perish. And, if he purchased some of this class, he did all, 
according to the obvious sense of the other passages cited by 
us. 

2 Cor. v. 15 (cf. v. 20, 21; and Rom. v. 18, 19): If we have 
rightly explained this verse in speaking of the atonement, the 
word zévtwy evidently signifies all mankind. Besides, verses 20 
and 21 are understood by the best interpreters as an epitome 
of Paul’s preaching to a promiscuous assembly ; and, if so, he 
was wont to exhort men indiscriminately to be reconciled to 
God, affirming virtually that there was no obstacle to this out 
of their own hearts, since God had made the sinless Christ to 
be sin for them. 

Matt. xxiii. 37 (cf. Rom. x. 21; Rev. xxii. 17; Ezek. xviii. 32) 
It is plain, we think, from the language of Jesus, that the 
people of Jerusalem did not perish for want of a Saviour. — 
Compare John Howe, “The Redeemer’s Tears wept over Lost 
Souls.” But, if Christ was ready to save them, he pone be 
equally ready to save all who perish. 

These and similar portions of the Word of God indicate, 
not merely that the atonement is sufficient for all men, but 
also that it has been made so zuzzentionally; that God designed, 
by means of the atonement, to make frovzszon for the pardon 
of all men,—to give them all a fresh probation and offer of 
life, by the economy of grace, as well as to lead some to re- 
pentance by the renewing power of his Spirit. Any other 
view of these passages seems to me unnatural, and therefore 
erroneous, 


230 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


If there were explicit statements in the Word of God, to the 
effect that Christ suffered for the elect on/y, — that he did not 
suffer for those who will be finally lost, —it would certainly be 
necessary for us to look for a different explanation of these 
passages; but we are not aware of any such statements, and 
therefore abide by their obvious import. 

At this point it may be proper to notice the relation of the 
propitiatory death of Christ to children who die in infancy. 
So far as now appears, such children are put in no practical 
relation to the atonement, unless it be by the secret and renew- 
ing work of the Spirit. Assuming, as we must, that this life 
is the only period of grace for mankind as sinners, and that 
the death of Christ was in some way for all our race, it follows 
that dying infants are regenerated by the Holy Spirit given by 
Christ.. Says Henry Wallace, “ Infancy is but a period in every 
human life; and the moral constitution of the race embraces 
the whole life of every member of it. Our relation to Adam 
is not restricted to adult life, but to all periods. Nor does this 
doctrine suppose or imply that children dying in infancy neces- 
sarily die under the guilt of Adam’s first sin; for there is a 
sécond Adam revealed from heaven, whose redemption, by a 
representative constitution also, embraces all periods of life, 
from unconscious infancy to old age.” — (“ Representative 
Responsibility,” p. 801.) 

The same inference may be made from the language of 
Scripture concerning the love and mercy of God. Judg- 
ment is his “strange work.” How much reliance is to be 
placed on a general statement of this kind, in judging of a 
particular case like the one in question, may be doubtful; 
but it surely has some bearing on it, and should therefore be 
mentioned. 

And a similar inference may be drawn from the want of 
anxiety in respect to those who die in infancy, which seems to 
characterize the good of every age and nation. David was not 
apparently concerned about the spiritual condition of the infant 
for whose life he had so earnestly prayed in vain. 

The next topic in course is, — 


The Doctrine of Salvation. - 231 


II. REVELATION By CuRIstT: and especially the moral 
influence of his humiliation and death upon sinners.! 

According to the prologue of John’s gospel, the pre-existent 
Word was the source of life for the world; and that life origi 
nated by him was the light of men. From the beginning, 
therefore, the Word has been the revealer. 

By creating man in the image of God, he made the very 
nature of man a means of knowledge in respect to the Most 
High, so that man could not use his own powers, and study his 
own constitution, without being reminded of him who is the 
“ First and the Best.” 

And by surrounding him with numberless beings, inferior 
to himself, but of wonderful instincts and organs, he gave to 
him still further light concerning the eternal power and God- 
head of his Maker. Every form of life was a ray of light from 
the divine Word; and, had man continued holy, there is little 
reason to suppose that he would have needed any better 
revelation of God. 

But sin entered; and the light became darkness, for the eye 
of the soul was closed. Man read neither the lessons of his 
own constitution, nor those written on the face of “animated 
nature.” In his self-will he turned the truth of God intoa lie, 
and worshipped the creature more than the Creator. 

Yet the Revealer did not utterly forsake the world of man- 
kind. There were some to whom he made himself known in a 
miraculous way. He appeared to holy men in dreams and 
visions; he caused them to hear his voice, and proclaim to others 
his will. He was the Angel of Jehovah, who spoke from the 
burning bush. He led his people by the hand of Moses to the 
foot of Sinai, and gave them the Law. 

This prophetic work of the Logos was continued through 
the whole Mosaic period, down to the time of Christ; the last 
and greatest messenger of the Word being John the Baptist, 
who came for a witness, that he might bear witness of the true 
light (John i. 7). 

1Wayland (F.) “ Discourses,” “Tforal Efficacy of the Atonement”; Bushnell 
(H.) “ The Vicarious Sacrifice.” 


232 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


Then the Word became flesh; and the apostle testifies, “ We 
beheld his glory, — the glory as of an only begotten from (aa) 
the Father, fuli of grace and truth” (John i. 14). “He was 
himself a bright revelation of the Father. His spirit, his 
teaching, his working, were in absolute harmony with the 
Father’s will. He was in the Father, and the Father in him. 
Every miracle, every parable, every rebuke, every invitation, 
was full of divine power, holiness, and love. 

But the revelation of God made by him reached its highest 
point in his atoning death. By this more vividly than by any 
thing else in the days of his flesh was made manifest the very 
“heart of Christ”; and the heart of Christ was also that of 
God. 


“Here the whole mystery is known; 
Nor dares a creature guess 
Which of the glories brightest shone, 
The justice, or the grace.” 


After his ascension into heaven, the Saviour continued his 
prophetic work by means of his disciples, and especially by the 
inspired ministry of the apostles. These repeated and put on 
record his sayings, described his wonderful works, recounted 
the story of his crucifixion, and bore witness to his resurrec- 
tion. More than all, they expounded the meaning of his death 
as sacrificial, propitiatory, vicarious ; and indeed, as necessary, 
in order that God might be just, and the justifier of him that 
trusts in Christ (Rom. iii. 26). 

By this prophetic work of the Saviour, continued down 
through the ages by the written word, and by the testimony of 
Christians, the moral power or manward efficacy of the atone- 
ment is realized. Thus the preaching of Christ, and him 
crucified, is found to be the power of God unto salvation to 
every one that believeth. 

As an exhibition of the divine character, the atonement 
tends to beget sorrow for sin and trust in the Redeemer. As 
a practical demonstration of Jehovah’s love, paying homage to 
righteousness, and yet reaching out its hand to recover the 
lost, it makes the strongest imaginable appeal to man’s 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 233 


religious nature. For, plainly, a love which meets the claims 
of divine justice, as well as the needs of sinful humanity, must 
be more powerful, as a motive, than a love which has nothing 
to do with the former while accomplishing the latter. What- 
ever emphasizes the holiness and justice of God — his sense of 
what is due to the sinner as a fit penalty for his sins —empha- 
sizes at the same time his love in providing a way of escape 
from that penalty. 

In proof of the moral power of the Saviour’s death, we 
appeal :— 

1. Zo the contrast between the effect of preaching before and 
after that death. The signal effect of the gospel on the day 
of Pentecost and subsequently, though due in part to a won- 
derful outpouring of the Spirit, was also due in a great measure 
to the saving truth which was now preached with unprece- 
dented clearness. 

2. To the description given by Paul of the gospel which he 
preached (% Cor. i. 23, 24; il. 2; 2 Cor. v. 20; 21; Gal. ili. 1). 
It is certain, from such passages as these, that the preaching of 
Paul had, for its principal theme, not the holy life, but the 
sacrificial death of Christ. He relied upon this as most likely 
to reach the conscience and the heart, whether of the unbeliever 
or of the believer. 

3. To the account which the apostles give of the influence of 
Christ's dying love on their own hearts. 2 Cor. v.15; Gal. ii. 20; 
= joann iv. 19 (ci. 1 Cor. i. 23, 24; ii. 2; 2 Cor. v. 20). The 
language of these passages is remarkably simple, yet forcible: 
“ For the love of Christ constraineth us, since we thus judged 
that if one died for all, then all died; and he died for all, 
that the living might no longer live unto themselves, but unto 
him who died for them, and rose again.” —“I am crucified 
with Christ; and I live no longer myself, but Christ liveth in 
me ; and the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by faith 
which is on the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself 
for me.” —“ We love him, because he first loved us.” * 

4. To the history of the Christian religion in every land 
where it has prevailed. It needs but a slight acquaintance 


1Compare 1 John iv. 9, 10. 


234 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


with that history to know how much depends on preaching 
Christ and his cross, — how little real piety there is if the 
latter is neglected, and how poorly missionaries succeed who 
say little of the atonement. ; 

It is worthy of consideration, that the moral power of the 
atonement made by Christ is due to the union of deity and 
humanity in his person. Had Jesus been only a perfect man, 
he might have shown very clearly how much God would have 
a subject of his moral government do or suffer for the benefit 
of others, but not how much the Supreme Ruler himself 
would ‘be pleased to do or suffer for such an end. Yet it is 
this which the heart of man longs to know; it is the latter, 
and not the former, which will touch the deepest chords of 
his spiritual nature. — (See Rom. viii. 32; John xiv. 9.) 

III. GoveRNMENT BY CuRIST: and especially redemption 
and judgment as administered by him. 

1. The Scriptures teach that Fesus Christ is now acting as 
mediatorial King, subduing the world to himself (Ps. ii.; xlv.; 
Ixxii.; cx.; Acts ii. 33; Heb. i. 3, 4; vill. 1 j)00Saueeeee 
Luke i. 32,33; John viii. 36; x. 27, 28; xvilieig@quee 
xiv.9; Eph. i. 22, 23; v. 23; vi.5-—9; Phil. i 20200 
oto trepsi. 6 3-1 Pet iti, 22): 

2. They teach that the Holy Spirit ts given by him as media- 
torial King (John xiv. 16; xv. 26; xvi. 7-15; Acts il. 33; 
Rom. vili..9; Gal. iv.6; Phil. i. 19; 1 Peter 2a 

3. They teach that he imparts to believers their spiritual 
life (John xiv. 6; vi. 35; xv. 1, 4; Rom. xii. 5; Vij jee 
xii. 27; 2 Cor. iv. 10, 11; v.17; Gal. ii, 20;\ Eph) ai@ guavas 
16; v..29, 31; Col. iii, 3; 1 Cor. xii.12; Galjiigaee 

4. They teach that he is their patron or advocate with the 
Father (Rom. viii. 34; Heb. vii. 25; ix. 24; 1 John ii. 1). 

5. They teach that he is to be the final judge of all men. — 
(See Matt. xvi. 27; xxv. 31-46; Acts x. 42; xvil. 31; Rom, 
xiv. 10; 2 Cor. v. IO—1I5.) 


1Steward (G.) “ Mediatorial Sovereignty.” 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 235 


Chvniik SECOND: 


THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
A, THE PERSON OF THE HOLY SPIRIT! 


Three subjects may be investigated in this section, namely: 
The Deity of the Holy Spirit; the Personality of the Holy 
Spirit; and the Identity of the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit of 
God. 

I. DEITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 

As the deity of the Holy Spirit is not often denied at the 
present time, it seems unnecessary to examine very fully the 
evidence for it. It will be sufficient to refer to certa'n passages 
of Scripture : — 

1. Which ascribe to him divine attributes or actions (for 
example, Acts xxviii. 25 (cf. Isa. vi. 8 sq.); Heb. x. 15 (cf. Jer. 
Bemis eane xX. 1); 1 Cor. li-10,11; John iii. 5, 6 (cf. i. 13): 

2. Which associate him in religious acts with the Father 
andstne son (Matt. xxviii. 19; 2 Cor. xiii, 13; 1 Peter i. 2). 

3. Which call him God, either directly, or by implication 
Praesens 1 Cor ii. 16,17; 2 Cor. vi. 16; Eph. a. 22; 
‘e@or. vi. 19). 


i. PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 


It will be found, upon examination, that the amount of evi- 
dence for the personality of the Holy Spirit is much less than 
that for the divinity of Christ. But it is to be borne in mind, 
that, if the deity of Christ and his personal distinction from 
the Father be admitted, the whole mystery of personal dis- 
tinctions in the one God is admitted. Z7zuuzty is no more 


1Qwen (J.) “On the Holy Spirit”; Buchanan (Jas.) “On the Office and Work 
of the Holy Spirit”; Bickersteth (E. H.) “The Spirit of Life”; Heber (R.) 
“The Personality and Office of the Comforter”; Hare (J. C.) “ Mission of the 
Comforter”; Kelly (W.) “The New Testament Doctiine of the Holy Spirit”; 
Jenkyn (T. W.) “The Union of the Holy Spirit and the Church” ; Walker (J. B.) 
“The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit” ; Barrow (I.) “De Spiritu Sancto,” ‘“‘ Works,” 
Vol. III.; Kahnis (K. F. A.) “Lehre des heiligen Geistes”; Pearson (J.) “On 
the Creed,” Art. VIII. p. 459 sq.; Parker (J.) “The Paraclete.” 


236 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


incredible than dzwzz¢y ; and, the latter being proved, there is 
no logical or philosophical objection to the former. 

In proof of the personality of the Holy Spirit, reference may 
be made, — 

1. Zo the language of Christ. According to Matt. xxviii. 19, 
the risen Saviour commanded his disciples to baptize those 
who should believe in him unto “the name of the Father, — 
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” And, as the Father 
and the Son are certainly conceived of as personally distinct, 
the Spirit must also be personally distinct from both; for it 
would be very unnatural to associate an operation or influence 
with persons, in such a formula. 

Again, in his discourse to his disciples, before he repaired to 
the garden of Gethsemane, he promised to send them “another 
helper,” or advocate, namely, The Holy Spirit ; and, by calling 
him “another helper,” he at once distinguished him from, and 
associated him with himself (John xiv. 16; xv. 26; xvi. 7-15). 

Besides this, he designated him several times by the mascu- 
line pronoun, “he,” — ézeives; — thus persisting in the personal 
characterization. It is also true that he used the neuter pro- 
noun “it,” in speaking of him; but this is probably due to the 
circumstance that the word signifying “Spirit” is neuter in 
the Greek language. — (See John xvi. 7, 8, 13; and xv. 26.) 

The Lord also declared that the coming paraclete would 
“not speak from himself”; which certainly implies that he 
could do so, or might be conceived of as able todo so. Says 
Meyer, “ This is the denial of something conceivable; and it 
serves to represent fully the harmony of the Spirit’s teaching 
with that of the Lord.” If the Holy Spirit was understood to 
be a divine energy, or influence, or mode of action, the apostles 
could hardly have needed this declaration. Independent action 
would have been quite out of the question. But, if he was to 
come as a person, the remark was pertinent, and important. — 
Compare John v. 19. 

Still further, Christ assured his disciples that the Spirit 
would be “sent” by the Father, and by himself; that he 
would “come” from the Father and “abide” with them; that 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 237 


he would “speak” what he “hears,” and “announce” what he 
“receives” ; that he would “teach” the disciples all things, 
and “guide” them into all the truth; that he would “bring to 
their remembrance” the Saviour’s word, and “reveal to them 
things to come.” If this be personification only, it is very 
bold, and persistent, and astonishing personification ! 

In estimating the weight of these expressions, it must be 
remembered, that they are taken from a discourse which was 
eminently solemn, deliberate, and even doctrinal. John may 
be called the ontological evangelist ; and the words of Christ 
preserved in his gospel are full of truth concerning the being 
cf God. 

2. To the language of the New Testament writers. For 
by their language he is associated with the Father and the 
San (2 Cor. xiii. 13; Matt. iii. 16,17; Eph. ii. 22; 1 Peter 
ie mixev. 1. 4, 5; Vv. 6 (cf. Zech. ch. iv.); 1 Cor. xii. 4—6); 
is represented as willing and feeling (Rom. xv. 30; 1 Cor. 
xii. 11; Eph. iv. 30); and is spoken of as if he were a per- 
sonal agent (1 Cor. xii. 8-11; Acts vil. 51; xiii. 2, 43 xxviii. 
eee 1. 14 (ef. Phil. iii. 3; Acts xxi. 11; 1 Tim. iv. 1; 
Rev. xiv. 13; ii. 7; iii. 6 and often). 

These passages, in themselves wholly unambiguous, ascribe 
choice, feeling, will, to the Holy Spirit. According to one of 
them, extraordinary gifts were bestowed by him, and at his 
 leasure ; according to another, he can be grieved by worthless 
speech on the part of believers; and, according to a third, he 
can be provoked to anger by their rebellion. It must also be 
observed, that the relative pronoun, os, in Eph. i. 14, repre- 
sents the Spirit as a person. This reading is retained by 
Tischendorf, Tregelles, Meyer, Ellicott, and is undoubtedly 
correct. Had Paul regarded the Spirit as a mere influence, I 
think he would have used the neuter relative. 

Hence the Holy Spirit cannot be simply a power or energy 
emanating from God the Father; for such an energy has no will 
of its own, but is directed by him who puts it forth. 

We conclude, therefore, from these texts, that there is a 
personal distinction between the Father and the Holy Spirit, 


138 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


But against this conclusion it has been urged, — 

1. That God the Father is declared to be the efficient 
cause of all extraordinary powers and works (for example, 
i COL. ak: 6): i 

Reply. We think the essential unity of the Godhead a 
sufficient reason for this. The one infinite Being operates 
with undivided energy in each person of the Trinity. The 


Father is not idle in the economy of salvation, but works in~ 


and through the Son and the Spirit, who are officially subor- 
dinate to him. Hence all their working may properly be 
referred to him, without denying their free, personal, omnipo- 
tent agency. 

2. That the Holy Spirit is often called the Spirit of God 
(for example, 1 Cor. xii. 3). 

Reply. So, too, is he called the Spirit of Christ (for exam- 
ple, Rom. viii. 9; Gal. iv. 6; 1 Peter i. 10, 11> Aietouawmegs 
Phil. i. 19). He may have been designated by the term, 
“ Spirit,” because of the special work which he performs in the 
hearts of men. Moreover, we cannot say that the phrase, 
“ Spirit of God,” indicates a more perfect union or identity of 
the Father and the Spirit than really exists according to 
the Trinitarian hypothesis. But this objection suggests that 
the Being who is often called Holy Spirit in the New Testa- 
ment may be the same who is called Spirit of God in the Old 
Testament. 

3. That the Holy Spirit is represented as being the same 
to God which man’s spirit is to man (for example, 1 Cor. ii. 11). 

Reply. We believe this statement too strong. Paul asserts 
that God is fully known by his Spirit only, —just as a man is 
known by his own spirit. This is the particular resemblance 
insisted on by the apostle; and we are not authorized to 
enlarge it by affirming that God’s Spirit bears the same rela- 
tion in other respects to the divine nature which the spirit of 
a man does to human nature. 

We see no good reason, therefore, to doubt the correctness 
of our conclusion, as stated above. 

In regard, however, to the whole doctrine of the Trinity, it 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 239 


may be well for us to take the advice of Augustine to Consen- 
tius, ll. p. 458, ep. 120: “ Nunc vero tene inconcussa fide, 
Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum esse Trinitatem, et 
tamen unum Deum; non quod sit eorum communis quasi 
‘quarta divinitas, sed quod sit ipsa ineffabiliter inseparabilis 
Trinitas. . . . Et quidquid tibi, cum ista cogitas, corporeze 
similitudinis occurrerit, abige, abnue, nega, respue, abjice, fuge. 
Non enim parva est inchoatio cognitionis Dei, si antequam 
possimus nosse quid sit, incipiamus jam nosse quid non sit.” 
Yet it is possible to deny too much, as well as to affirm 
too much, in respect to the Trinity. An able writer errs, 
perhaps, in the former direction. His definition of the Trinity 
is as follows: “1. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost 
are one God. 2. Each has a peculiarity incommunicable to 
the others. 3. Neither is God without the others. 4. Each 
with the others is God.” This definition is in itself uncb- 
jectionable on the positive side ; but it allows of the following 
denials, which seem to us out of harmony with the New Testa- 
ment: “In God are not three wills, three consciences, three 
intellects, three sets of affections.” —“ He is one substance, 
and in that substance are three subsistencies; but the sub- 
sistencies are not individualities.” We do not like the word 
individualities, as applied to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ; 
but we are satisfied that the New Testament represents them 
as personal beings. It shows that the distinction between 
them is of a personal nature. For it teaches (a) that the per- 
sonal pronouns — /, thou, he, we, they — are applicable to the 
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, — separately or collec- 
tively, — three egos, or consciousnesses. (4) That the Son is 
said to do the will of the Father, and the Spirit to be sent by the 
Father and the Son, — three centres or faculties of voluntary 
action. (c) That the Father knows the Son and all that he 
does, while the Son knows the Father and all that he does; 
and the Holy Spirit knows the very depths of God, — three 
centres of knowledge. (d) That the Father loves the Son, and 
the Son the Father; while the Holy Spirit is grieved at the 
coldness of Christians, — three sets of affections. Here, then, 


240 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


we are taught that the Father, Son, and Spirit do have per- 
sonal distinctions,—three faculties of will, three faculties of 
knowing, three sets of affections; or, in a word, three personal 
centres, three consciousnesses. Objectively, and in respect to 


the universe, their knowledge, will, conscience, and affection ~ 


are one in comprehension and aim; subjectively, each is per- 
sonally, though not in substance, distinguishable from the 
others. 


III. IDENTITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE SPIRIT OF GOI. 


Weinfer that the terms, “ Holy Spirit,” and “Spirit of God,” 
as used by the sacred writers, are frequently, and perhaps 
generally, equivalent, from those passages : — 


1. Which interpret the latter appellation by the former 


(for example, Acts ii. 16, sq. (cf. Joel iii. 1-5); (Acts x. 38; 
(cf. Luke iv. 18; and Isa. lxi. 1, 2); see also Mark xii. 36). 

2. Which ascribe the same functions to the Holy Spirit, 
and to the Spirit of God. For example, — 

(1) That of quickening the understanding of men for 
important service (John xi. 51; Rom. xii. 6—8; 1 Cor. xii. 28, 
(cf. verse 7); Ex. xxxi. 3,6; xxxv. 31, 35; 1 Kimpsun7 aoe 
iv, 20; Jud. iil. 10; vi..34; 1 Sam. xi.6; xvi mae 

(2) That of inspiring men to teach the willof God. (John 
xiv. 26; xv. 26; xvi. 13; Luke 1.67; Acts xxi @peeepeeen 
i, 21; 2,Sam. xxiil. 2; 2 Chron. xx. 14; Ezekj aig 
iii. 8; and Jud. vi. 34; 1 Chron. xii. 18; 2 Chron. xxiv. 20 


(cf. Luke xxiv. 49). 


(3) That of working directly in their hearts, to sanctify 


them (Rom. v. 5; xv. 16; John xvi. 8—12; ili. 3-8; Ps. Ii. 
8-14). 

R. It would, perhaps, be going too far, were we to affirm 
that the phrase, “ Spirit of God,” as used in the Bible, refers 
uniformly and distinctively to the Holy Spirit. It may be 


1Kleinert (P.) “ Zur alttestamentlichen Lehre vom Geiste Gottes”; “ Jahr- 
biicher fiir Deutsche Theologie,” XII. s. 3ff.; Kahnis (K. F. A.) “ Die biblische 
Bedeutung des Wortes Geist”; Wo6rner ( ) “Das Verhaltniss des Geistes 
zum Sohne Gottes”; “ Die Bedeutung des heiligen Geistes beziiglich der Aufer- 
stehung des Leibes und des ewigen Lebens”; Guers ( ) “ Der heilige Geis’ 
nach seiner Lehre und nach seinem Werk.” 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 241 


employed in some instances without any reference to personal 
distinctions of the Trinity; and it was doubtless generally 
employed by the Old Testament prophets without any definite’ 
idea of its reference to a particular person of the Godhead. 


8B, THE WORK OF THE HOLY SP'RIT. 


Some theologians, founding their arrangement of topics on 
the doctrine of the Trinity, characterize the present dispensa- 
tion as that of the Spirit; and under “The Work of the 
Spirit” treat of conviction, regeneration, sanctification, and 
the means of grace. But objections to this analysis may be 
found (a) in the fact that justification was not regarded by the 
apostles as distinctively a work of the Spirit; (2) in the promi- 
nence which was given by them to the preaching of Christ 
and him crucified, as leading to repentance and faith; and 
(c) in the position which they assigned to Christ as the 
actual Head of the kingdom of grace. 

Yet it will be seen at a glance that if the actual redemption 
of the elect is not discussed under “The Work of the Holy 
Spirit,” this topic may be treated very briefly ; since nearly all 
that may properly be said upon it has either been anticipated in 
speaking of the divine authority and inspiration of the Scrip- 
tures, or will be embraced necessarily in a discussion of the 
subjects comprehended in “ the doctrine of redemption,” — the 
word “redemption” being used to signify the application of 
the atonement to those who are saved. 

It will therefore be sufficient to mention in this place the 
several topics that belong to a full discussion of ‘“ The Work 
of the Spirit” ; while the treatment of them will be found under 
other heads. These topics are as follows: The Work of the 
Holy Spirit, — 

iin Conviction: John xvi. 8-11; Rev. xxii. 17; (cf. 
Gen. vi. 3; Acts vii. 51). 

II. In Regeneration (John iii. 5, 6, 8; 2 Thess. ii. 13; 
Pobeter i: 2). 

III. In Sanctification (Gal. v. 22; Rom. xii. 3; 1 Cor. xii 
3,9; Rom. vili. 13). 


242 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


IV. In Inspiration (Num. xi. 24-29, temporary; Jud. iii, 
10; vi. 34; Micah iii. 8; John xvi. 13). 

V. In Imparting other Gifts. 1 Cor. xii. 8-11; xiv. 1-34; 
(cf. Ex. xxxi. 2, 3; xxxv: 31'sq.; 1 Sam, =igam 


‘ 


CHAPTER THIRD. ’ 


DOCTRINE OF REDEMPTION, 


THE topics to be considered in this chapter are three; 
namely, Regeneration, Justification, Sanctification. 

I. REGENERATION. In studying this subject, we shall 
endeavor to ascertain from the Scriptures the nature of the 
spiritual change called regeneration, the author of that change, 
the means with the use of which it is effected, the antecedents 
to it in the human soul, and the first fruits of it in experience.' 


I. THE NATURE OF REGENERATION, 


Before attempting to define the change in question, it will 
be necessary to examine some of the terms which are used by 
the sacred writers to denote it. 

(1) The word zehyyerecia employed by Paul in Titus iii. 5, 
is derived from zéiw and yé¢vecy, and signifies a “new birth,” 
“another birth”; setting forth the event of birth, however, in 
a perfectly general, abstract manner, as another coming to be, 
without any reference to father or mother. The word evayerraa, 
used in I Peter i. 3, 23, is from ava and yeyram, and signifies, 
properly, “to beget again,” of course as a father; yet this 
definite sense sometimes gives place to the more general one 
of bringing a child into existence. The word yerréw, used in 
John i, 13; iil. 3,5—8;-1 John il. 20; ill. 9; iv. 75a 

1 Owen (J.) “ On the Holy Spirit,” B. III. ; Hodge (C.) “ Essays and Reviews,” 
p- 1 sq.; Wines (E. C.) “On Regeneration”; Phelps (A.) “ The New Birth”; 
Fuller (A.) “ Works,” Vol. III. 776; Vol. II. 411, 461, 463, 515, 518; Woods (L.) 
“Works,” Vol. III. p. 1 sq.; Witsius (H.) Part I. cc. 5, 6; Charnock (S.) 
“Works,” Vol. II. p. 1 sq.; Winer (B.) “The Creeds of Christendom,” p. 145 
sq.; Anderson (W.) “ Treatise on Regeneration,” Princeton Theol. Essays, First 


Series, “‘ Regeneration,” p. 267, sq.; Bunyan (J ) “Grace Abounding to the Chief 
of Sinners”; “ Pilgrim’s Progress,” and “ Holy War.” : 


The Doctrine of Salvation. * 243 


signifies, properly, “to beget, as a father” ; but it is also predi. 
cated of a mother, though rarely, — meaning, “to bring a child 
into being,” —“ to bring forth” (cf. 1 Cor. iv. 15; Gal iv. 19). 
Joined with drader, éx tov mvevuatog, ix tov Jeov,' it denotes the 
new birth. Hence these three words affirm, in the passages 
- cited, the origination of a new or second life of man, —a life on 
which he never enters by natural birth. ° As to this particular 
life, they presuppose him to have been previously non-existent. 

(2) But this is not the only view taken by the sacred 
writers. Sometimes the previous state is represented as one 
of death; and the event in question as bringing the dead to 
forsee ROm. vi. 4, 5, 8, 11, 13; Eph. ii. 5, 6; Gal. 
ii. 19, 20.) In the passages cited from his Epistle to the 
Romans, Paul speaks of Christians as walking in “ newness of 
life, — xam6ryt Coys ; and as “ alive from the dead,” — éx vxoor 
Cartes. In the one from his letter to the Ephesians, he says 
that “God made us, being dead in sins, alive with Christ,” &c. 
The moral quickening of believers is here conceived of as 
involved in the reanimation of Christ (cf. Rom. viii. 29, 30; 
2 Cor. v. 15), as also their resurrection and exaltation in his 
(cf. Rom. i. 4). In the one from his Epistle to the Galatians, 
he refers to the change in question as double,—as dying to 
the law ; that is, to self-righteousness, self-confidence, or self 
as supreme, and as coming into possession of a new life, which 
has God for its end, and Christ, instead of the human ego, as 
supreme. His language agrees with the view, that, in the 
unrenewed heart, self holds the place which belongs to God. 
The passage in his Epistle to the Romans, vi. 2-14, also 
refers to this double change in regeneration, or rather to the 
two aspects or sides of the change. 

(3) Still another view of the apostle deserves attention. 
Iie represerts the event before us as a creation, and the result 
of it as a new creature, — (See 2 Cor. v. 17): “So that, if any 
one is in Christ, he is a new creature (xawy xtiots); the old 
things passed away: behold, they have become new” 
(cf. Gal. vi. 15; also Eph. ii. 10). —‘ For we are his work 
manship (zoiqua), created (xno0drrec) in Christ Jesus unto good 


4John iii. 3,6; 1 John iii. 9. 


244° Manual of Systematic Theology. 


works (gyo).” And iv. 24: “ Put on the new man, who was 

created after God (zov xara Szov xr16 07a) in the righteousness 

and holiness of truth.” So likewise in Col. iii. 9, 10: “Lie not 

one to another; seeing that ye put off the old man with his 

deeds, and put on the new, who is being renewed unto knowl- 

edge after the image of Him who created him,” — zaz’ etxora 
LOV “TIGHVTOS QUTOP. \ 

(4) No less instructive is another view of the apostles. 
They teach that, by regeneration, men pass from a state of 
darkness or blindness to one of light or vision. Thus 1 Peter 
ii. 9: “But ye are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy 
nation, a people for a possession; that ye should show forth 
the virtues of him who called you out of darkness into his 
marvellous light.” And in Eph. v. 8: “For ye were once 
darkness, but now light in the Lord: walk as children of light.” 
Also in Acts xxvi. 18: “To open their eyes, that they may 
turn from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto 
God.” (cf. 1 John ii. 9, 10). 

(5) Another view is that of men being drawn or called to 
Christ. Thus John vi. 44: “ No one can come to me, except 
the Father, who sent me, draw him” (cf. xii. 32). And 1 Cor. 
i. 24: “ But to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, 
Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God” (cf. ver. 26, 
and Rom. viii. 28, 30). The calling referred to in these and ° 
similar passages is internal and effectual (cf. John v. 25 — 29; 
xl. 43). 

According to the passages which we have examined, the 
change in, question certainly takes place in the spirit of man, 
originating what is absolutely new in that spirit, — what is vital, 
active, powerful ; what is morally right and good, like the Holy 
Spirit, or like God; what appreciates God and truth, swaying 
the soul to him as the supreme good. We know not how to 
describe this new element of life in the spirit better than by 
calling it a holy disposition, or a disposition to holy action ; 
for it renders obedience to the holy will of God spontaneous 
and delightful. 

Hence regeneration may be described as a change in the soul 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 245 


of man, by which a disposition to holy action is originated, and 
in which such action begins. 

Some would prefer to describe it as a change by which a 
predominant love of God takes the place of a predominant love 
of self. And others would prefer to consider it a fundamental 
and permanent chotce of the soul, by which the glory of God ts 
made the great end of life. 

But the first and second definitions are preferable to the 
third. (@) Because moral renovation is often described by the 
sacred writers as a change of heart or affection (Deut. xxx. 6; 
Ree ge xx. 33; Ezek. xi, 19; xviil. 31; Xxxvi. 26; 
Heb. viii. 10). (4) Because sin and holiness are both traced 
to the heart as their source (Ps. Ixxviii. 18, 37; Matt. xxii. 37; 
emex 10), Ps. xcv. 10; Matt. xv. 18,19; Acts v. 3; vill. 21; 
feomexit TO); Ps, xxiv. 4; Matt. v. 8; 1 Tim. 1.5; 1 Peter 
i. 22; 1 John iv. 7, 8). (c) Because it best accounts for the 
sudden change in the balance of our affections at conversion 
Meccrerins, 22, 23; 1 John iii. 9;'ii. 29; 1v. 7; v. 1, 4, 18; 
John ii. 3-8; Eph. ii. 8, 10; Johni. 12, 13). 

All these passages, unless John i. 12, 13, be an exception, 
suppose that regeneration is followed by the new affections. 
In this single instance, the usual order of sequence is appar- 
rently reversed, and faith is supposed to be made the condition 
of regeneration, and therefore prior to it. But if éSovovay here 
signifies the right or privilege of sonship, it is a right which 
may presuppose faith as the work of the Spirit in regenera- 
tion, — a work apart from which no genuine faith exists in the 
soul. 

But it is possible that John means to say that, in the case 
of all who received Christ, their power to believe was gzven to 
them by him. Note the order of the words in the original 
passage, by which the emphasis falls on the word gave. Yet 
the former interpretation: is perhaps preferable to the latter, 
though the position of the word “ gave,” and the tenor of the 
whole passage, require us to suppose that divine grace was the 
great fact which filled the writer’s soul. 

We have put in our definition the words, “and in which 


246 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


such action begins,” because the first exercise of a right moral 
disposition takes place, as a rule, at the very instant of its 
origin. But we do not know that this is true in the case of 
those who are regenerated in infancy. The change may, 
indeed, be effected just when the spirit is leaving the body, 
and opening its eye to the realities of another world. We 
are not, however, aware of any good reason for believing this 
to be the fact; nor, on the other hand, are we aware of any 
good reason for believing it not to be the fact. 


II. THE AUTHOR OF REGENERATION. 


1. The Scriptures affirm, that, as a matter of fact, God is 
the author of the change in question (1 Peter i. 3; James i. 18; 
John i. 13; Rom. xii. 3; 1 John iii. 9; v. 1, 185 0geleumenon 
XXXvi, 26; Jer. xxiv: 7; xxxi. 33; Deut. xx1G)}3 ieee 
mony of these passages, taken with that of others referred to 
in speaking of the nature of regeneration, is too exact and clear 
to admit of any doubt. It is not, then, by an act of his own 
will that any man is truly renewed in the temper of his mind, 
but by the will and grace of God. 

2. Again the “Scriptures affirm, that the change in ques- 
tion is effected by the Holy Spirit. (John iii. 5, 6; Tit. iii. 5 ; 
1 Cor. xii. 3,9, 13; Rom. vilii 2-11; Gal. v. § (cf. Rom. 
xii. 3; 1 Peter i. 2; 2 Thess. ii. 13). .And the factyemmaume 
often ascribed to God is no valid objection to the view that it 
is always wrought by the Holy Spirit; for the Holy Spirit is 
God. In like manner creation is ascribed to God; while it 
appears from several unequivocal declarations of Scripture that 
all things were brought into existence by the immediate agency 
of the Word. 

(2) There can be no appreciable period in any man’s life 
when he is neither for Christ nor against him,— when his 
religious state is strictly neutral. Hence the work of regener- 
ation must be pronounced instantaneous. There must be a 
moment when the new life begins, —a point of time before 
which it was not, and after which it was. : 

(0) The Holy Spirit is not perceived by the consciousness 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 247 


. of man at the instant of regeneration ; or, indeed, at any other 
time. The effect of his presence is perceived ; and that effect 
is of such a nature as to be referred with full confidence to 
his working. Penitence for sin, trust in Christ, and joy in the 
Lord are represented as fruits of the Spirit; and one who is 
conscious of these feelings may be sure that the Spirit is at 
work in his soul. 

(c) All resistance of the Spirit may therefore be defined 
more exactly as resistance of those truths, views, convictions, 
or feelings which are known to be from him. One who resists 
his messengers rejects him; one who attempts to smother 
feelings or convictions which mav be rationally ascribed to 
his action does the same. 

(2) There is no reason to believe that the regenerating 
action of the Spirit is assisted by the will of man. The sub- 
ject of this saving change never co-operates with God in origi- 
nating it, though some have asserted that he does. In other 
words, the syzergzstic theory is unscriptural. 

(e) Yet the action of the Holy Spirit in regeneration does 
not conflict with the freedom of the human will, does not vio- 
late the laws, nor abridge the liberty of the soul, any more 
than did the action by which it was brought into existence. 
Indeed, we suppose that the soul is, in most instances, intensely 
active at the time of regeneration, — active with reference to 
the work of Christ, or its own sinftlness, or the love of God. 
It sees the evil of sin; it cries for mercy; it trusts in Christ ; 
and it does all these freely or voluntarily, under the influence 
of the Spirit. 


i. Relation of Christian Truth to Regeneration. 


This is a topic of no little difficulty, and must be carefully 
examined. There are a few passages, — 

1. Which speak of truth as the means employed in effect- 
ing this spiritual change (for example, 1 Peter i. 23; James 
i. 18; 1 Cor. iv. 15). The first of these may be translated 
thus: “Being born again, not of perishable seed, but of imper 
perishable, through the word of God, which liveth and abideth 


248 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


forever.” Here the term “seed” may refer to the Holy . 
Spirit, and the term “word” to the gospel. In favor of this 
interpretation may be urged (a) The difference between the 
prepositions translated “from” and “through”; (6) The use 
elsewhere of another word from the same root as the term 
translated “seed,” to denote the Holy Spirit, or the holy, dis- 
position which is sustained by his action in the soul. — (See 1 
John iii. 9). And (c) The analogy of other statements con- 
cerning regeneration. If this passage represents the “word” 
as the source from which regeneration proceeds, it stands 
alone. 

Dorner (J. A.) favors the opinion, that, by “the word of 
God” is here meant Christ himself, who is conceived of in this 
clause as the one by whom regeneration is effected. He is 
called the Word of God, because he is the One by gyhom God 
has revealed himself. To him the participles “living” and 
“abiding” are of course applicable in a literal sense.’ 

The second passage may be translated strictly : “ Of his own 
will, he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should 
be a kind of first fruits of his creatures.” The word of truth 
is here represented as the means by which the new birth is 
completed ; and the new life is conceived of, we think, as hav- 
ing its source in God, or the will of God, but as brought into 
conscious being by the word of truth. This interpretation 
accords with the use of amoxve in verse 15, where it refers to 
the very last stage of the process of generation or birth. 

1 Cor. iv. 15: “For in Jesus Christ I begot you through 
the gospel.” Here the words, “in Christ Jesus,” point to the 
source of the new birth; “through the gospel,” to the means 
by which it was accomplished ; while the pronoun “I” refers 
to the agent who used the means.?- The quickening element 
or power in which the spiritual generation was effected was 
Christ, or the Spirit of Christ;* but the new life was not 
brought to light without the gospel. 

1See “History of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ.” 


Introduction. 
2 Cf. 1. Cor. ii. 4, 5; Gal. iv. 19. 8Cf. Rom. viii. 9, 10. 


The Doctrine of Salvation, — 249 


There are also passages : — 

2. Which seem to imply that truth is the means of 
regeneration (for example, Rom. x. 17; Matt. xxviii. 19° 
Mark xvi. 15). 

The last two verses referred to are not indeed very defi- 
nite, and would prove no more than this, that the gospel 
must be received in faith by all who are saved through Christ. 
And this might be true, if regeneration were effected by the 
direct and single agency of the Spirit. But the first seems 
to go a little further, —“ So, then, faith comes from hearing, 
and hearing through the word of God.” There can be no 
reason to doubt that Christian faith is always dependent on 
Christian truth as its proximate cause or occasion; and this 
is all that the apostle’s language teaches. 

It is, then, a doctrine of Scripture, that religious truth is, 
in some sense, a means of the new birth, and in a sense obvi- 
ous and certain a means of faith, love, hope, and every Chris- 
tian feeling.’ 

Hence it is held by many that the Holy Spirit does not act 
directly on the soul of man, but only mediately through the 
truth. The heart is really changed bythe word, which the 
Spirit applies with infinite skill. 

Another view is, that the Holy Spirit energizes the word of 
truth, — makes it vital, infuses into it a mysterious power to 
pierce and purify the soul. 

But neither of these views is altogether satisfactory. We 
object to the former; namely, that the Spirit simply preaches 
. the truth with infinite skill, (2) because it appears to have no 
clear support in the language of Scripture. The word of 
God is indeed called “the sword of the Spirit” (Eph. vi. 17) ; 


1 Miiller (J.) “ Abhandlungen,” IV. “Das Verhiiltniss zwischen der Wirk- 
samkeit des h. Geistes und dem Gnadenmittel des gottlichen Wortes,” 127- 
277; Woods (L.) “ Works,” Vol. III., p. 1 sq.; Wardlaw (R.) “Systematic The- 
ology,” Vol. III.; Phelps (A.) ‘The New Birth; or, the Work of the Holy 
Spirit,” p. 103 sq.; Owen (J.) ‘‘A Discourse concerning the Holy Spirit,” p. 
135 sq-; Hodge (C.) “Systematic Theology,” II. 639 sq, III. 3 sq.; Dagg (J. L-) 
“Manual of Theology,” p. 277 sq.; Baird {S. J.) “The Elohim Revealed,” p. 
863 sq. 


250 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


but the meaning of the apostle is, that “the word of God” 
is to be used by Christians as a sword given to,.them by the 
Spirit (Rom. x. 17; 1 Cor. iv. 15). Whether the Spirit himself 
uses it, he does not say. But the language of Luke, in Acts 
xvi. 14, suggests that it is the work of the Spirit to open the 
heart to receive the gospel as preached by men. (0) Because 
the sinfulness of men is not due to their ignorance of the 
truth, but to their rejection and hatred of it and of its hely 
author (Rom. i. 18, sq). (c) Because the Christian has no 
such knowledge of the process of regeneration as this theory 
would ‘suggest. He is conscious of the change, but#not of 
its being wrought by the force of truth. (d) Because men 
are not generally conscious of any peculiar combination, or 
skilful application of truth to their minds, at the moment of 
conversion. It is often an old and common truth, which 
engages their thought, uttered perhaps by a friend’s voile, or 
recalled and pondered in the field. 

As to the second theory, that Christian truth is filled with 
divine energy by the Spirit dwelling in it at the moment of 
regeneration, the following may be said :— 

(a) That it is impossible to conceive of truth as charged 
with any other power than that which it has as truth. But 
if it were charged with a power distinct from its own, that 
power must act in its own way on the soul; it cannot change 
the nature of truth, or give to it more than its own efficiency." 

(6) That the effect of Christian truth on a human soul, at 
any time, must depend on the permanent nature and momen- 
tary condition of that soul, together with the adaptation of the 
truth to its nature in that condition. 

(c) That any thing which predisposes the soul to heed or 
believe that truth may be said to co-operate with it, and impart 
to it an effectiveness which it would not otherwise have. 

1Says Dr. Wardlaw, “That it (the influence of the Spirit) must be upon the 
mind, and not upon the truth, is quite evident. The latter description of infiv: . 
ence is utterly unintelligible, — words without meaning. The truthis the truth, — 
incapable of alteration, incapable of being affected by any, even a divine influ- 


ence. It must be on the perceiving mind that the influence comes.” — “ Sys, 
Theol.” III. p. 24, 25. 


— — 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 251 


(Z) That the earnestness, sincerity, and love of the human 
preacher dooften thus co-operate with divine truth, making it 
more effective than it would otherwise be. In other words, 
the manifest effect of truth on the speaker’s heart may en- 
kindle interest and awaken confidence in that truth on the part 
of the hearer. But this is something quite different from an 
energizing of the truth itself; and it wholly fails to justify the 
statement of Prof. Phelps, that “truth energized by the Holy 
Spirit may take possession of a man impetuously; so that, 
whether he is in the body or out of the body, he cannot tell.” 

How, then, is the instrumentality of truth in regeneration 
to be reconciled with the direct agency of the Spirit in effecting 
it? It has been supposed, — 

1. That regeneration is effected by the joint action of the 
Holy Spigit and of Christian truth. This truth, when it enters 
the mind of a moral being, has, it is said, a certain tendency 
to Sive it a right moral bias or disposition ; but its force is not 
sufficient to overcome the resistance which is encountered in 
the depraved heart of man. Hence the need of some further 
and greater influence from without; and this is afforded by the 
agency of the Spirit, co-operating with the truth. Both act in 
the same way for the production of exactly the same thing; 
namely, a right disposition. This view is certainly plausible; 
but it does not satisfy us. 

(a) Because it co-ordinates the action of Christian truth with 
that of the Holy Spirit; while the Scriptures represent truth 
as only a means or instrument, but the Spirit as a generator 
or source of the new life. 

(2) Because the action of truth is under the eye of con- 
sciousness, while that of the Spirit is not. It is, therefore, 
difficult to believe that they act in the same way. One con- 
vinces, persuades; the other works graciously in the unseen 
depths of the soul. 

(c) Increase of religious knowledge appears to have in itself 
‘10 tendency to change hatred of God into love. Godas a holy 


1“The New Birth,” p. 131.— Compare Rev. i. 10; iv. 2; xvil. 3; Ezek. ii. 2; 
iii. 12, 14, 24; xi. 24, which ascribe such an effect to the Spirit, but not to truth. 


252 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


Sovereign, Christ as a vicarious sacrifice, and pardon as an 
unmerited favor are offensive to an unregenerate mind. We 
do not deny that truth has power to rouse the conscience, to 
awaken human sympathy, and to lead men to much that is 
commendable in human conduct; but it does not make them 
hate sin as such, nor love God as a holy Sovereign, nor delight 
in pardon on terms that humble self. 

2. That regeneration, or the new birth, includes the first 
conscious working of the new life; that it has a conscious as 
well as an unconscious side, both of which are necessary to 
its completion. The principle of life, the new disposition, is 
given by the Holy Spirit; but the action of this bias, or spiritual 
life, as required by God, and experienced by us, is absolutely 
dependent on truth. There can be no holy desire, affection, 
or volition, except in view of truth. The conscious image of 
Christ in the soul is produced by the word of God. The 
Holy Spirit makes the soul sensitive to the light of truth at 
the very instant when that light, pouring in upon it, originates 
as a means the visible image of Christ, —the new life of faith 
and love. It is the action of the spirit which prepares the 
plate; it is the influence of truth which brings out the picture. 
The soul must be made susceptible, or the light of truth falls 
upon it in vain. The work of the Spirit is the logical ante- 
cedent of that of the word: both, however, act at the same 
time." 

This view seems to be correct,— supported by Scripture, 
and reason, and experience. 

Note.— The divine side of the change in question might 
have been called “regeneration”; the human side, “ conver- 
sion”; and both united, “change of mind,” — that is wetévoue ; 
but the sacred writers made use of popular language. 

But we must consider another point. Many believe that 
regeneration is effected by, or in baptism, regarded as a sacra- 
ment. According to the Council of Trent, Sessio VII., “ the 
most holy sacraments of the Church” are the means “fer gu@ 
omnis vera Justitia vel incipit, vel cepta augetur, vel amissa 


1See Principal Cunningham’s “ Historical Theology,” Vol. I. p. 350. 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 253 


reparatur.’ Moreover, an anathema is pronounced on every 
one who affirms that the “ sacramenta nove legis non continere 
gratiam, quam significant, aut gratiam ipsam non ponentibus 
obicem non conferre, guast signa tantum externa sint accepte pcr 
jidem gratia vel justitie,’ &c. So, too, an anathema is pro- 
nounced against every one who says that “children, because 
they, do not exercise faith, are not, when baptized, to be 
reckoned among the faithful,” &c. 

According to the Augsburg Confession, the Lutherans 
“ de baptismo docent, quod sit necessarius ad salutem, quodque 
per baptismum offeratur gratia Dei: et quod pueri sint bap- 
tizandt, qui per baptismum oblati Deo recipiantur in gratiam 
Det. Damnant Anabaptistas, qui improbant baptismum puero- 
rum et affirmant pueros sine baptismo salvos fiert.”? 
In the Liturgy of the Church of England for the public 


- baptism of infants, the minister, after baptizing the infant, is 


required to say, “ We receive this child into the congregation 
of Christ’s flock”: and still further, “ Seeing now, dearly 
beloved brethren, that this child is regenerate, and grafted into 
the body of Christ’s Church, let us give thanks unto Almighty 
God for these benefits,” &c.° 

It seems to us evident that the Evangelical or Low Church 
wing of the English Episcopalians holds a false position, and 
is losing influence year by year, as compared with the High 
Church wing, and no less so as compared with the advocates 
of the Broad Church theory. The language of the Liturgy 
teaches plainly the doctrine of baptismal regeneration ; and 
those who maintain it have an advantage, in the Church of 
England, over those who oppose it, — similar to that which 


1Cf. “Catechismus Romanus,” p. 2, c. II. s. 5; Perrone (J.) “ Tractatus de 
Baptismo,” in “ Przlectiones Theologice ”; Verrien (E.) “Infant Baptism in case 
of Danger”; the work is in French, and treats especially of ante-natal baptism, 
as authorized and practised by Romanists. 

2 Cf. “Catechismus Minor,” IV. 6, 12. 

3“ Tracts for the Times,” Vol. II. No. 76; III. 76; Wilberforce (R. I.) “ The 
Doctrine of Holy Baptism,” &c.; Goode (W.) “The Doctrine of the Church of 
England as to the Effects of Baptism in the case of Infants”; Mozley (J. B.) 
“The Primitive Doctrine of Bap. Regeneration.” 


254 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


Baptists have over those who reject their view of apostolic 
baptism. 

Before considering the passages which are alleged in sup- 
port of this belief, it will be proper to weigh the following 
facts, namely :— 

1. In the apostolic age, baptism was preceded by repent- 


ance, faith, &c.— (See Acts ii. 37-41; viii. 12; xvi. 14, 31-33; - 


xviii. 8 (cf. Matt. xxviii. 19; Mark xvi. 16; Matt. iii, 1-11; 
‘Mark i. 4, 5; Luke iii. 8.) For the import of the expression, 
“works or fruits meet for repentance,” see Acts xxvi. 20, and 
compare Luke xxiii. 41, and 2 Macc. iv. 25. 


2. Persons were sometimes filled with the Holy Spirit, — 


that is, baptized in the Holy Spirit, and so endowed with 
miraculous gifts before baptism (Acts x. 44-48). These gifts, 
as a rule, presuppose regeneration, and furnish credible evi- 
dence of it; hence they were said to justify baptism. 

3. Baptism is described by the apostle Peter as “the 
answer of a good conscience” (1 Peter iii. 21); but a good 
conscience is a fruit of regeneration (1 Tim. i. 5, 19; ili. 9 (cf. 
Spd 3)g deb. ix. 145 (xX. 22 5) xii S), 

4. Administering the ordinance of baptism was esteemed 
by Paul subordinate to the work of preaching (1 Cor. i. 17, 
18, 21). This is very evident, not only from the language 
found in the verses here cited, but also from the way in which 
he generally refers to the work of preaching. 

5. This apostle claims to have begotten the Corinthian 
Christians by the gospel; while he disclaims baptizing them, 
except in a few instances.— (See 1 Cor. iv. 15; i. 14, 15.) 
This is decisive.’ 

With these facts before us, we turn to the passages which 
have been supposed to teach the doctrine of baptismal regen- 
eration (namely John ili. 5; Tit. ili. 5; Eph. v. 26; and 
1 Peter iii. 21; Acts xxii. 16). On the first three of these 
texts, we remark :— 

1“ Baptist Quarterly,” Vol. IV. pp. 239, 240; Mellor (E.) “ Priesthood in the 


Light of the New Testament,” p 32 sq.; “ Ecclesia: Second Series,” “ Baptisma! 
Regeneration.” 


ob le 


The Doctrine of Salvation, 255 


(1) If they refer at all to the rite of baptism, they do not 
prove the doctrine of baptismal regeneration; for it may be 
truly said that baptism is the symbol of regeneration, — the 
prescribed expression for it ; and no true Christian of the first 
age could have thought of any substitute for it in acknowledg- 
ing the change which had been wrought in his soul. The 
inward change and the outward expression of it must have 
been very closely united in the minds of Christians. Each 
would suggest the other; and forms of speech would be trans- 
ferred from one to the other. 

Hence Christ, in his discourse with Nicodemus, virtually 
said, “ To be a true member of my earthly kingdom, you must 
be born again, ritually and spiritually ; you must submit to the 
‘rite of baptism, and experience a renovation of heart by the 
Spirit of God; you must not only confess me openly in the 
prescribed way, which you are unwilling to do, but must also 
be the subject of a great spiritual change effected by the 
power of God” (cf. Rom. x. 9 for the same order of thought ; 
it is the rhetorical instead of the logical order). 

In the Epistles to Titus and the Ephesians, Paul blends the 
inward change with the outward expression of it, even as he 
does also in Rom. vi. 2 sq., and Col. it. 11, 12. The two he 
regarded as practically inseparable: true belief in Christ 
involved the prescribed expression of it, and vzce versd. 

If this be the correct interpretation of these passages, they 
agree in sense with 1 Peter ili. 21, and Acts xxii. 16. Prof. 
Hodge remarks, that, “when any declaration or service is the 
appointed means of professing faith or obedience, making such 
declaration, or performing such service, is said to secure the 
blessings which are promised to the faith thereby professed” 
(“ Way of Life,” p. 267). To understand such language, it is 
only necessary to bear in mind, that, in the apostolic age, it 
was, as a rule, indispensable, (1) To be baptized in the name 
of Christ, in order to confess him before men; and (2) to con- 
fess him before men, in order to be saved by him.— (See 
Matti. 32, 335\ xi. 30: Luke xiv. 26, 27, 33.) 

By the limiting clause, “as a rule,’ we design to except such 


256 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


cases as follow: (a) those who had not bodily health or strength 
to be baptized; (4) those who could not find a suitable person 
to baptize them; (c) those who were prevented from receiving 
it by their parents; (@) those who were prevented solely by a 
distrust of their own piety. Baptism has never been a pre- 
requisite to salvation, except as obedience to the known will of 
Christ is such a prerequisite. 

(2) Itis not certain that either of the first three passages 
refers to baptism. Neither of them contains the word which 
commonly denotes this rite. It may be that the work of the 
Spirit in regeneration is characterized figuratively as a cleans- 
ing, purifying work by the words “ water,” “bath,” and “ bath 
of water.” This is a very obvious and natural interpretation 
of the passage in Titus; and scarcely less so of the words of 
Christ in John, and of Paul in his letter to the Ephesians. 


iv. The Antecedents on the part of man to Regeneration. 


These cannot be pointed out with entire accuracy; for no 
man who is a Christian can be sure as to all that preceded 
and accompanied regeneration in his own soul; yet expe- 
rience, observation, and the word of God suggest a few things 
which commonly precede this radical change. They authorize 
us to say, that but few are regenerated save those, — 

1. Who have some knowledge of the gospel. This may be 
inferred from the great commission (Matt. xxtiii. 19; Mark 
xvi. 15, 16), from the language of Paul (Rom. x. 17, 18), and 
from the history of mankind. We do not say that no man has 
been regenerated without hearing the gospel; but there is 
reason to suppose that comparatively few have been. The 
state of the heathen is deplorable. 

2. Who give earnest heed to the gospel. God does not 
often impart the new life to a careless soul, — to one who pays 
no serious attention to the truth. It may be only for a short 
time; but generally, if not always, the unrenewed man takes 
hold of the word seriously before the decisive change. 

3. Who are fully convinced of their own guilt (Acts ii. 37). 
It is true, that many who are converted at the present day 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 257 


seem to have but a faint sense of personal guilt before the 
change; but they have, we think, some sense of it: and they 
have no doubt whatever of their deep sinfulness. . In former 
times, a deeper conviction of sin seems to have generally pre- 
ceded a change of heart. 

4. Who are truly anxious to be saved (Acts ii. 37 ; Xvi. 30). 
“To be saved,” we mean, from eternal death, from the penalty 
of sin, and perhaps from sin itself, as involving that penalty. 
Beyond this, the carnal heart does not go. It has no desire 
for.God and holiness in themselves, and no hatred of sin «as 
such. The conscience, indeed, condemns sin; but the heart 
loves it. Self cherishes self, and refuses to God his place. 
Men sometimes think they hate sin, as sin, before conversion ; 
but we'think they are mistaken. Certain forms of sin shock 
their sensibilities ; but mere sin, as against God and right, they 
do not hate. 

5. Who feel their need of help, in order to be saved. One 
who believes that he can do all that must be done to deliver 
himself from sin, and render himself acceptable to God, is not 
likely, while cherishing that belief, to be renewed by the Spirit 
of God. Men are commonly made to feel their need of divine 
help, before it is granted. Often they are led to the brink of 
despair, in their efforts to make themselves right, before the 
grace of God enters their hearts. 

By calling ese “antecedents,” instead of conditions, we 
mean to guard against the following errors: (a) That, when 
realized, they place God under obligation to regenerate the 
soul; (4) that, when realized, they constitute the reason why 
he performs this work. Nothing which an impenitent man 
does establishes any claim to the mercy of God. He can 
plead no promise of renewing grace. His thinking, his 
anxiety, his fear, his sense of need, his prayer, all spring from 
a carnal heart, which has no real trust in Christ, or love to 
God (cf. Turretin, i. 318 sq.). 

Nay, so far as we are informed by the language of Scripture, 
there is nothing which men do defore regeneration which is 
uniformly followed by regeneration. Thusa man may become 


t 
X 


258 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


eligible to the presidency of the United States, by reaching 
the age of thirty years ; but not every man who is thirty years 
old is made president of the United States. Again, the tak- 
ing of a certain oath might be necessary to render one eligible 
to that office; but taking it would not therefore secure him 
the office. So the particulars named above may be antece- 
dents of regeneration, and yet constitute no claim to it, nor 
even a sufficient or proper motive for it. 

We are brought, therefore, face to face with the doctrine of 
election. There are doubtless good and sufficient reasons 
which move God to regenerate and save some men rather 
than others; but they are not revealed, and should not be 
sought with too eager a curiosity. 

“ But that soul in the heaven which is most pure, 

That Seraph which his eye on God most fixes, 
Could this demand of thine not satisfy ; 

Because so deeply sinks in the abyss 
Of the eternal statute what thou askest, 
From all created sight it is cut off. 

And to the mortal world, when thou returnest, 
This carry back, that it may not presume 
Longer tow’rd such a goal to move its feet.” 

— Dante Paradiso, xxi. 90. 

The Scriptures forbid us to find the reasons in question in 
the moral action of men before the new birth, and refer us 
merely to the sovereign will and mercy ofg@God; in other 
words, they teach the doctrine of personal election on the part 
of God. — (See Jas. i. 18; 1 Peter i. 1-3; Gal ingietee 
Eph. i. 4, 5, 9, 11; 2 Tim. i. 9; Rom. viii. 28, 305 meeaneeee 
Acts xiii. 48; Rom. xi. 29; 1 Cor. i. 24, 26; Eph. i. 18; iv. 1; 
Phil. iii. 14; 2 Thess. i. 11; Matt. xxii. 1-14; Xx 
xl. 20— 22; Luke xiv. 15-24; John xv. 16.)! 

I Mozley (J. B.) “The Augustinian Doctrine of Predestination”; Woods (L.) 
“Works,” Vol. IV. pp. 39-63, and 231-267; Taylor (N. W.) “Revealed 
-Theology,” pp. 378-9; Bunyan (J.) “The Jerusalem Sinner Saved,” “Com- 
plete Works in one Vol.” p. 322; Calvin (J.) “ Institutio Christiana Religionis,” 
IIL. ce. 11-24; Wardlaw (R.) “Systematic Theology,” Vol. II. pp. 485-549; 
Weiss (B.) “Die Pradestinationslehre des Apostel Paulus,” Jahrbiicher fiir 
Deutsche Theologie, II. s. 54 ff.; Winer (G. B.) “The Confessions of Christen- 


dom,” p. 162 sq.; Nemeyer (H. A.) “Collectio Confessionum,” &c., p. 218 sq.5 
“Consensus Genevensis: De Aeterna Dei Przedestinatione.” 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 259 


In view of what the Saviour and his apostles clearly teach, 
it may be considered certain (2) That God has a sovereign 
right to bestow more gvace upon one subject than upon 
another, — grace being unmerited favor (Matt. xx. 11-16; 
Rom. ix. 20, 21). (6) That God has been pleased to exercise 
this right in dealing with men (Ps..cxlvii. 20; xix. 9, 10, com- 
pared with 1-6; Rom. iii. 1, 2 (cf. i. 20); John xv. 16). 
(c) That God has some other reason than that of saving as 
many as possible for the way in which he distributes his grace 
(Matt. xi. 20-22; Rom. ix. 22-25). 

It may also be remarked: — _ 

I. That the action of God in electing, calling, justifying, 
and glorifying men is intelligent, — not blind. In this case, 
as in every other, he does what he knows it is best todo. He 
knows the personal qualities and circumstances of every man; 
and it may possibly be that the uses to which he can put cer- 
tain persons, as vessels of grace, determines his selection of 
them. But this is merely a conjecture. All we know is, that 
he has good and sufficient reason for the choice he makes. — 
“ Heus tu, caute de istis agas ” — (Zwingle.) 

2. That he elects from mankind certain persons to be 
renewed and saved by his grace. Why he takes these, rather 
than others, we are not informed; but it is an act of pure 
grace on his part. It is not because they are more worthy 
or less unworthy of his favor than others; nor because they 
have done any thing morally pleasing to him; nor because 
they will to be saved, and others do not: he only tells us that 
such is his good pleasure (Rom. viii. 28; Eph. i. g-11; Rom. 
ieuer, FS; 16). 

3. That his purpose to save the elect includes the ‘atone- 
ment of Christ, and their union with him. Apart from his 
person and work, God purposes to save no one; but union 
with Christ is made actual by faith: and faith presupposes 
the effectual calling or regenerating work of God by his Spirit 
(Bip 1 45 1 55-2 Timi, 9)." 

1Says Augustine, “Non quia credimus, sed ut credamus, elegit nos: ne 
priores eum eligere dicamur” (De Pradest. Sanctor. ch. 8); “Apostolus gra- 


260 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


4. That God’s treatment of the non-elect is just His 
right (Rom. ix. 20) to save some men, while he leaves others 
to reap the fruits of their own sin, is as perfect as that 
of the potter to mould his clay as he pleases, —either to a 
noble or a vile use. The lesson is not that “might makes 
right,” but that God is morally entitled to glorify his right- 
eousness or his mercy in disposing of a guilty race. By 
virtue of his relation to men, he has a right to bestow more 
good upon some than upon others, though the — are as 
undeserving as the latter. 

Says Dorner, “The working of God on Pharaoh finds him 
already wicked, and only brings out what is latent. If wick 
edness takes place, the fault is in the wicked tools which 
God does not allow to stand idle. God indeed preserves 
the wicked; but he does not create within them a new ele- 
ment of wickedness.” 

If we understand the apostle in his letter to the Romans, he 
regards the hearts of all men as fully set in them to do evil, — 
as at enmity with God, and disobedient to his righteous will: 
hence all men are living under just condemnation to death 
for their sins. He also regards mankind as so bent upon 
evil, that all, with one consent, reject, or would reject, the 
offer of pardon, though presented with every gracious influ- 
ence but that which regenerates the heart; and, in view of 
these facts, he pronounces it to be perfectly right for God to 


save none, or to save all; or to save some, and leave the rest 


‘to perish. 

But, it is said, this doctrine of personal election is unequal, 
and therefore unfair; all those who are equally guilty ought 
to be dealt with alike; and God is no respecter of persons. 
To this we reply, We have no reason whatever to believe that 
God treats all moral beings or all men alike, —doing as much 


‘tiam przponit operibus, non ut opera extinguat, sed ut ostendat non esse opera 
:preecedentia gratiam, sed consequentia. . . . Non enim ut ferveat, calefacit 
ignis, sed quia fervet. Nec ideo bene currit rota, ut rotunda sit, sed quia 
‘rotunda est; sic nemo propterea bene operatur, ut accipiat gratiam, sed quia 
accepit.’”’ — (Ad. Sinepl. lib. 1.) 

1 “History of Protestant Theology,” I. s. 210. See Shedd (W. G. T.) “Ser- 
mons to the Natural Man,” p. 358 sq. 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 261 


for one as for another. “What, then, is the advantage of the 
Jew? ... Much every way.” He had reason to bless God 
for distinguishing goodness; and so have all who know the 
gospel.’ 

Besides, the truly good rejoice that other beings are wiser 
and better than they, even though this superiority is due to 
the hand of God. What benevolent heart would not be glad 
to know that other races of moral beings have been more 
highly endowed, and placed in more favorable conditions for 
persevering in virtue than our own? But, of all beings, cul- 
prits condemned to death have the least right to insist that 
they all must be treated alike ; that no favor be granted to one 
that is not given to all. A government may consult its honor 
and safety in the treatment of rebels. 

Yet it may be said, as a matter of fact, (2) That God offers 
his favor to all men on the same terms: the conditions of jus- 
tification by law or by grace are the same for all. (4) That, 
when he deals with men as a Judge, it is according to their 
true character; the great and the wise fare no better than the 
feeble and the foolish. (c) That he takes account of their dif- 
ferent circumstances in estimating the guilt of men.— (See 
Deut. x. 17; 1 Sam. xvi. 7; Job xxxiv. 19; 2 Chron. xix. 7; 
Acts x. 34,35; Rom. i. 11; Gal. ii.6; Eph. vi. g; Col. ii. 25; 
I Peter i. 17 (cf. Matt. xxii. 16; Mark xii. 14; Luke xx. 21; 
Jas: ii. 1; Jude, 16). 


v. Furst Fruits of Regeneration in Experience. 


Of these, the most important are the following : — 

1. Spiritual Discernment. This appears to precede in the 
order of nature every pious affection or volition. “In strict- 
ness of philosophical language, spiritual knowledge is distinct 
from faith, and precedes it. By knowledge, the object is fur- 
nished which is received by faith as true.”? Yet it has some- 


1See Froude (J. A.) “ Address on Calvinism,” p. 5; Dante Paradiso, XXXII. 
61 sq. 

2 Alexander (J. W.) See Wardlaw (R.) “Sys. Theol.” II. 749. Dr. Payne 
defines faith, “The belief of the gospel; its meaning, evidence, and glory being 
unveiled to the mind by the Holy Spirit.” Dr. Wardlaw’s discussion is able. 
He makes spiritual discernment a condition of faith. 


262 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


times been doubted whether the power of discerning religious 
truth is increased by direct agency, or only by indirect, — by 
the relish for truth implanted in the soul. 

2. Christian faith. By this is meant a genuine trust in 
Christ as Saviour, —a trust which presupposes a belief in the 
testimony of the Scriptures respecting him. Faith is a recep- 
tive act, and is supposed by many to precede regeneration. 
But this surely is an error; for, as Schmid says, “ All the 
apostles agree in this, that faith is mediated by a new birth 
from God.” Says Dr. Williams, “Faith in Christ is the very 
first outgush of the new-found spiritual life.” The relation of 
faith to regeneration is one of great importance, and cannot be 
too carefully settled. 

3. Christian love. By this we mean a supreme delight in 
God, as revealed by Jesus Christ; and, in general, a truly 
benevolent disposition. “The glory of God,” says Charnock, 
“is the end of the new creature; self, the end of the old 
man” (Vol. II. p. 51).2 Love is communicative, and is a 
higher grace than faith ; for it is more blessed to give than to 
receive. The words eyazaw and eydan are generally used by 
the writers of the New Testament to express Christian love, 
They signify good-will towards an object, united, for the © 
most part, with delight in its qualities. Love to enemies is 
expressed by the word e¢yazé, but not by the word guile. * 

4. Christian hope. This relates to one’s own salvation 
through Christ, and is logically subsequent to faith and love. 
It may be described in a word as anticipation, and it evi- 


1 See 1 Johnv.1; Eph. ii.8; 1 Cor. xii. 3; Rom. xii. 3; John v. 24; vi. 47 (cf. 
1 John iii. 9, 14). Fuller (A.) “ Works.” II. pp. 118, 376, 377, 379 sq-; Arder- 
son (W.) “Treatise on Regeneration,” p. 116 sq.; Kostlin (J.) “ Der Glaube: 
sein Wesen, Grund, und Gegenstand, ‘seine Bedeutung, fiir Erkennen, Leben, 
und Kirche”; Erskine (J.) “ The Nature of Christian Faith,” in “ Theol. Tracts,” 
Vol. II. p. 201 sq.; Hopkins (M.) “ Faith,” Princeton Review, 1878, p. 511 sq. 

2 See Barrows (I.) “ Works,” Vol. I. p. 238 sq. 

8 Trench (R. C.) “The New Testament Synonymes,” p. 38 $q. Yet I am in 
doubt whether this author has rightly explained John xxi. 15-17. See also 
Cremer (H.) “ Biblisch-Theologisches W6rterbuch der New Testament Greecitat,”” 
s. v. Ayar7. 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 263 


dently held a prominent place in the experience of the 
apostles." 

Repentance® is a comprehensive term, often used to signify 
the first spiritual emotions of the soul, in contrast with its 
former views or feelings; more strictly, mentem muto (in 
melius), aid sometimes to denote especially, though not exclu- 
sively, contrition for sin, Acts xx. 21; xxvi. 20; viii. 22; 2 
Cor. xii. 21 (cf. 7,9, 10). It is never employed in the New 
Testament to express mere regret or remorse, withcut any 
change of moral bias. 

Il, JUSTIFICATION. 


The religious literature of the present day furnishes evi- 
dence of no little contempt, on the part of some zealous 
teachers, for the doctrine of justification through the work of 
Christ, imputed to those who believe in him. Yet this doc- 
trine must stand; for it is founded on the clear testimony of 
Scripture, and is necessary to peace of conscience, in view of 
personal sin and of a holy law. In studying it, therefore, we 
are studying a central and most important truth, which cannot 
be too well understood by a follower of Christ. 

There may be an objection to considering it in this place, 
on the ground that regeneration is the beginning of sanctifica- 
tion; and therefore the latter ought to be studied in inmediate 
connection with the former. But to this it may be replied, 
that justification is connected and contemporaneous with faith, 
while an assurance of it promotes sanctification. Hence it is 
safe to follow the usual arrangement, and consider justification, 
before taking up the subject of sanctification. 

The following topics belong to the doctrine in question: 
The nature of the act, the author of the act, the ground of the 
act, the condition on which it depends, and the reasonableness 
of it.’ 

1Kelber (L.) “ Christliche Hoffnung,” in “ Jahrbiicher,” &c., Vol. X.; Zoéckler 
de vi ac notione vocis éAmi¢ in Novo Tnto.” 

2Meravoia, See Trench, wf supra, p. 241 sq. In composition peta denotes, 1, 
cum ; 2, trans. (um.) ; 3, fost. Wilkei Clavis, ed. by Grimm. 


3 Owen (J.) “On Justification”; Buchanan (Ja.) “On Justification”; Preuss 
(E.) “Die Rechtfertigung des Siinders vor Gott, aus der heiligen Schrift dar 


264 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


I. THE NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION. ~ 


No one of the sacred writers makes use of this expression 
so frequently as the apostle Paul. Hence our knowledge of 
its meaning must come in a great measure from the study of 
his writings. The verb which is translated, to justify, occurs 
thirty-eight times in the New Testament, and mostly in books 
written by Paul, or by his companion, Luke. Thus (Matt. xi. 
19, xii. 37; Luke vii. 29, 35; x. 29; xvi. 15; xviii. 14; Acts 
Xlli. 39, twice; Rom. ti. 13; iii. 4, 20, 24, 26, 28, 30; iv. 2, 5; 
V. I, 9; Vi. 7; Vill. 30, 33; I Cor. iv. 4; Vi Fi; (Gee 
17, four times; iii. 8, 11, 24; v. 4; 1 Tim. iii. 16; Titus iii. 7; 
James li. 21, 24, 25). 

An impartial study of these passages, with others in the 
Old Testament where the corresponding Hebrew word occurs, 
will convince any one that it is properly a legal term, and 
signifies to pronounce one right or righteous before the law (Ex. 
xxill. 7; Deut. xxv. 1; 2 Sam. xv. 4; 1 Kings viii. 32; Isa, 
v. 23; xliii.9). It never signifies to make a person righteous, 
but always, for one reason or another, to declare him righteous. 

Note, first, that it is used of the decisions of an earthly 
tribunal (Isa. v. 23; Deut. xxv. 1); and also of the decisions 
of the Supreme Ruler at the last day (Matt. xii. 37; Rom. ii. 
13, 16). Secondly, that it is used as the opposite of con- 
demnation (1 Kings vili. 32; Prov. xvii. 15; Matt. xii. 37; 
Rom. viii. 33, 34). And, ¢hzrdly, that it is used as virtually 
equivalent to the act of forgiving sins, or of not imputing 
iniquity (Acts xiii. 38, 39; Rom. iv. 6—8). 

It is doubtless true that pardon and justification are sep- 
arable in thought. Pardon assumes that there is guilt; justi- 
fication says that there is none. But, in the case of sinners 
believing in Christ, the two are but different sides of the 


gestellt”; Fuller (A.) “ Works,” I. 276; Bunyan (J.) “Justification by an 
Imputed Righteousness”; ‘“ Works,” ed. by Geo. Offer, I. 300 sq.; Bushnell 
(H.) “The Vicarious Sacrifice,” Part III. c. 7; Chalmers (T.) “Institutes of 
Theology,” Vol. II.; Wardlaw (R.) “Sys. Theol.” Vol. II. p. 678 sq.; Gerhard 
(J.) “Loci Theologici,” T. III. L. XVI. p. 300 sq. ed. Preuss; Winer (G. B.) 
“Creeds of Christendom,” p. 178 sq. 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 265 


same act. For God pardons no one whom he does not at 
the same instant justify; and he justifies no one whom he 
does not at the same instant pardon. Hence the sacred 
writers use the terms as if they were equivalent; or, since 
one involves the other, they do not deem it necessary to men- 
tion them both in the same connection.— (See Mark i. 4; 
Hmnker 775 Mi. 3); Xxive 47; Acts i. 385 v. 315 x. 435 xxv 
18; Eph. i. 7; Col. i. 14; and Luke xviii. 14; Rom. iii. 24; 
Vv. 9; Vili. 30; Titus iii. 7). 

In the order of nature, pardon precedes justification; for a 
sinner cannot be pronounced righteous before the law until 
his sins have been forgiven; yet in time and effect they are 
inseparable and equal, though not the same. 

It may be added, — 

(a) That justification does not set one free from the law of 
God as a rule of duty (Rom. vi. 1, 14, 20; vii. 5, 7,9; Gal. 
ili. 19), though it does set him free from it, as a rule by which 
he is to be finally acquitted or condemned. Antinomianism 
is a dangerous perversion of the doctrine of grace. 

(4) That justification does not secure for one the same 
treatment in all respects which he would receive if he were 
free from personal sin. Bishop Devenant remarks, “God 
absolves the justified from all punishment that is retributive ; 
but not from all that is chastening and medicinal.”!. 

(c) That pardon and justification are complete from thes 
first moment of their existence. God does not forgive a part 
of the believer’s sins, or pronounce him partially just before 
the !aw. He forgives all, and declares the pardoned sinner 
righteous, or free from condemnation. 

Yet this statement is by no means inconsistent with the 
theory of continuous pardon and justification. The relation 
of the believer to Christ is ever dependent on a vital union 
between the two (1 Peter i. 5); and the blessing of justi- 
fication may well be conceived of as’ being perpetually 
renewed. Hence pan could pray for the pardon of his 


1Compare Heb. xii. 4 sq. 


266 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


great sin (Ps. 1.). Hence, likewise, all Christians ought daily 
to pray for the forgiveness of their sins (Matt. vi. 12) ; Preuss 


(E.) “Die Rechtfertigung des Siinders vor Gott,” —“ Sechster 


Abschnitt : Bestandige Vergebung,” s. 119. 

Hence the doctrine of the Papal Church on this subject 
must be rejected. For that Church teaches that “justification 
is not solely the remission of sins, but also the sanctification 
and renovation of the inner man, by a voluntary reception of 
grace and gifts”; and also that the “sacrament of baptism” 


is the “sacrament of faith, — without which (faith) no one is 


ever justified.”' That is, justification is conditioned on faith; 
and faith is conditioned on baptism. 


In other words, righteousness is infused into the heart by — 


justification ; so that men are pardoned and sanctified by the 
same act,— the forgiveness of sins or justification after bap- 
tism, fluctuating from time to time. This doctrine is not 
Scriptural. 


II. THE AUTHOR OF JUSTIFICATION. 


According to the apostle who speaks most frequently of 
justification, it is to be looked upon as an act of God the 
Father.—“ It is God that justifieth.’ It was God who “set 
forth Jesus Christ in his blood as a propitiation, for the exhi- 
bition of his righteousness, that he might be righteous and 
pronounce righteous him that believeth” (Rom. i. 17; iii, 
21, 30; iv. 5; viil. 30, 33; x. 3; 2 Cor. v. 21; Gale 

And according to the same apostle, it is the grace of God 
which leads him to justify any. Even faith in Christ has no 
virtue in itself. As an affection or act of the soul, it is infe- 
rior to love; and neither of them is half as steady or fervid as 
it ought to be. As strongly as possible, therefore, does Paul 
assert that justification is an act of free grace to the sinner on 
the part of God. In himself, the believer has no claim to it. 
Rom. ili. 24; iv. 4, 16; v- 15; xi. 5,6; Eph. 1. 6 
John iii. 16; 1 John iv. 9, 10, 19; Acts xx. 24; 1 Cor igs 
Epitai. 7,8; 2 Thess. 11/163 Tinas/ii.° 14): 

1“Canones et Decreta Concilii Tridentini,’ Sessio VI. Canones II-., VI. 
VII. ch. viii. 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 267 


And this view of the case is yet more obvious, when the act 
of God is simply denominated forgiveness of sins. For no 
one would think of himself as having a right to forgiveness ; 
much less would any one who had a just conception of the 
dreadful guilt of sin dream that any thing in his own action 
could entitle him to pardon. Forgiveness, in order to be for- 
giveness, must be unmerited. 

But, from another point of view, it is an act of righteous- 
ness (1 John i. 9): “ If we confess our sins, he is faithful and 
righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from 
all unrighteousness.” For, in this passage, the faithfulness 
referred to is fidelity on the part of God to his promise; and 
righteousness is that attribute of God which insures such 
fidelity. In a certain sense, therefore, the penitent believer 
has a title or claim to the mercy of God, but not “in andof ' 
himself” ; his title is in Christ, to whom he is joined by 
faith: and this brings us to another section. 


III. THE GROUND OF JUSTIFICATION. 


By this we mean the moral basis or sufficient reason for 
this act, — that in consideration of which the believer is justi- 
fied. And this can only be the vicarious work of Christ, 
culminating in his death. This may be proved, — 

1. Dy the direct testimony of God’s Word (for example in 
am. 1124, 25; Vv, 0,18, 19; Eph.i. 7; Gal. ili.13); 1 Jo. ii. 2, 12). 

The first of these passages describes men as justified 
“through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus”; and this 
redemption is said to be in him, because the righteousness of 
God had been illustrated by his propitiatory death. In the 
second, men are represented as having. been “justified in the 
blood of Jesus,” who had died for them while they were sin- 
ners. In the third, it is said that “as through one trespass it 
came upon all men unto condemnation, so also through one 
righteous act it came upon all men unto justification of life.” 
In Eph. i. 7, the apostle speaks of Christ as the one “in 
whom we have the redemption through his blood, — the 

. remission of our trespasses”; and in Gal. iii. 13, he declares 


268 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


that “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having 
become a curse for us.” It would be difficult to express the 
fact of justification through the vicarious death of Christ in 
plainer language than this. ; 

2. By the indirect testimony of God’s Word. Matt. xxvi. 28; 
t Cor, i. 30; xv. 3; 2 Cor. v.21; Gal. i 4; Coleeeaenene 
ix. 22; 1 Peter ii. 24 (cf. Luke xxiv. 47; Acts ii. 38.) 

The whole of our argument for the Godward efficacy of the 
atonement may be referred to in support of the statement 
which we. have now made in respect to the ground of justifi- 
cation; and on this account it seems unnecessary to protract 
our investigation at this point. A review of that topic will 
afford ample evidence of the proposition above expressed. 


IV. CONDITION OF JUSTIFICATION. 


- It has been shown that the proper ground or sufficient 
reason for justification is the vicarious death of Christ. But 
unbelief in Christ, as the Saviour of sinners, or a refusal to 
accept of pardon on account of his atonement, would be an 
insuperable obstacle to a sinner’s justification ; and, therefore, 
facth or trust in him is very properly said to be a condition 
of justification. Some have preferred to call it a prerequisite . 
rather than a condition; but we see no difference between the 
two words in this connection. Without faith in Christ cruci- 
fied, no one can receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance 
with the saints in light. This is the plain meaning of the 
inspired writers (Mark xvi. 16; John ill. 36; vi. 40; Acts xvi. 
31; Gal. i. 16;.11. 21; 1 John v. 10,12; Rom, Higa 
iv. 5, 13, 14; v. 1; Gal. iii. 6 sq. 26; Eph. it. 8; in a7 
iii. 9; Heb. xi. 6). 

From the testimony of the Word of God, therefore, it 
appears that trust in Christ, rather than sorrow for sin, or 
love to God, is the proper condition of justification; not 
as working, but as trusting, are men justified or forgiven. 
Hence fait. does not justify as being in itself righteousness, 
obedience, a germ of righteousness, or an equivalent for 
obedience; but as a total renunciation of all claim to personal 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 269 


righteousness, and a sole reliance upon Christ for acceptance 
with God.—The glory of faith is, that its utter oo 
opens to receive consummate good.”’* 

A disposition of heart, therefore, whose moral epadtntnes 
were essentially the same as those of intelligent faith in 
Christ, must have been possessed by every adult of the 
human race that has been saved. Christian faith is the act 
of a sinner who sees himself to be a sinner, and utterly 
renounces all trust in his own works, whether internal or 
external,— all confidence in his own love, or trust, or humility,’ 
and casts himself without reserve on the mercy of God in 
Christ. It is, therefore, quite as truly distrust of self, as it is 
trust in Christ. It cannot live without doing good; but it 
can do no good in which it has any confidence as satisfying 
the law of a holy God. 


V. REASONABLENESS OF THIS DOCTRINE. 


On this difficult subject, only a few suggestions can be 
made; and they will be no more than inferences from the 
language of the New Testament in respect to the intimate 
connection between Christ and his people. They are said to 
be “in Christ”; and Christ is said to be “in them”: they are 
said to be one body; and he is said to be the head of that 
body. It may therefore be affirmed that in a profound, 
spiritual sense, (2) Zhe soul of the believer ts united with 
Christ.— (See John i. 12; vi. 35; xv. I-11; Rom. xii. 5; 
1 Cor. xii. 12-27; Gal. ii. 20; ili. 16; Eph. v. 29-33; and 

(6) This union with Christ secures to the believer the ben- 
efits of his work. ‘Nhat the believer in himself does zot 
deserve, — that is, life, —— Christ does deserve; and what the 
believer in himself does deserve,—that is, death, — Christ 
has suffered for him (cf. 2 Tim. i. 10). 

1 Alexander (J. W.) “ On Faith”; Jackson (T.) “ Works,” Vol. IIL., “Justify- 
ing Faith ”; Winer (G. B.) “ The Confessions of Christendom,” p. 183 sq. ; Kahnis 
(K. F. A.) “Die Lutherische Dogmatik historisch-genetisch dargestellt,” II. s. 
265 ff.; Preuss (E.) “ Die Rechtfertigung des Siinders vor Gott,” s. 27,83; Hase 
(K.) “ Hutterus Redivivus,” s. 306 ff.; Luthardt (C. E.) “Kompendium der 
Dogmatik,” s. 219 ff.; Reuss (E.) “History of Christian Theology in the Apos- 
tolic Age,” II. ch. 13. 


270 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


In these two facts we may discover, perhaps, the philosophy 
of justification. Believers are vitally and legally one with 
Christ. Hence (1) Their sins are now forgiven in view of 
what he with whom they are made one has suffered in their 
behalf. (2) They are treated as implicitly righteous; and this 
treatment comports as well with the divine righteousness as 
it would if they were personally righteous. The law has no 
penal claim on them for sin. (3) They are treated as sons of 
God, and joint-heirs with Christ ; and thus, through adoption, 
they expect a glory which they could not have expected as . 
a reward for their own obedience, even if they had never 
sinned. 

The spiritual union of the believer with Christ is such, that 
he has true fellowship with the work of Christ. He indorses 
and accepts it, so far as possible, as his own. He acknowl- 
edges the law of God to be holy, and its penalty just. In 
dying to sin, he dies with Christ; entering into the meaning 
and necessity of the Saviour’s death, and feeling that, if it 
were possible, he would gladly suffer in the same way, and for 
the same great end,—the honor of God, and the good of 
men. Hence we say that the imputation of Christ’s work is 
mediate, —not immediate,— to the believer as such, and not 
to the elect as such. A moral union is prerequisite to the 
legal one. 

The logical order of the process of redemption seems to 
be this: (1) Election by God, the Father; (2) Regeneration 
by the Holy Spirit ; (3) Union with Christ by faith; (4) Im-, 
putation of Christ’s work; (5) Justification on account of that 
work.’ 

As the philosophy of justification is a matter of great 
interest, we subjoin a few extracts which bear upon it: —? 


1Kahnis (K. F. A.) “ Die Lutherische Dogmatik,” II. s. 273 ff.—It is worthy 
of notice, that Lutheran theology makes union with Christ a consequence of justifi- 
cation by faith. “The doctrine of justification is treated by Paul; the doctrine 
of the mystical union, by John; and the doctrine of sanctification as preparatory 
to eternal life, by Feter.””— (Kahnis.) 


2 Gordon (A. J.) “In Christ,” VI. p. 115 sq. “Standing in Christ.” 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 271 


“T attribute the highest importance to the connection between 
the head and members, —to the mystical union by which we 
enjoy him, so that, being made ours, he makes us partakers 
of the blessings with which he is furnished. Because he has 
designed to wife us to himself, therefore we glory in a 
participation of his righteousness.” — Calvin (J.) “ Institutio 
Christiane Religionis,’ L. III. c. xi. 10. 

“Faith must be purely taught; namely, that thou art so 
entirely and nearly joined to Christ, that he and thou art 
made, as it were, one person: so that thou mayest boldly say, 
I am now one with Christ; that is to say, Christ’s righteous- 
ness, victory, and life are mine. And again, Christ may say, 
I am that sinner; that is, his sins and his death are mine, 
because he is united and joined unto me, and I unto him.” — 
Luther (M.) “ Com. on Gal.,” Eng. Transl. p. 171. 

Zwingle taught that Christ “is made unto us righteousness, 
for no one may come to God who is not righteous; and 
neither can any man be righteous in himself. But Christ is 
righteous, and he is our head; we are his members, and thus, 
as members, draw near to God through the righteousness of 
the head.” 

“ Justifying righteousness is the doing and suffering of 
Christ when he was in the world. . . . When Jesus Christ 
fulfilled the righteousness of the law, it is said it was fulfilled 
’ in us, because indeed fulfilled in our nature. . . . For there 
being a wuzon between head and members, though things may 
be done by the head and that for the members, the things are 
counted fo the members as if not done by the head.... 
Wherefore, in this sense, we are said to do what only was 
done by him; even as the client doth by his lawyer, when his 
sawyer personates him.” But, “mark, the righteousness is 
still zz Christ, not in us, even then when wWe are made par- 
takers of the benefit of it; even as the wing and feathers still 
abide in the hen when the chickens are covered, kept, and 
warmed thereby.” — Bunyan (J.) “ The Works of,” Vol. I. pp. 
302, 304, edited by George Offer. 


Lows 


272 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


The justification of the believer is no other than his being 
admitted to communion in the justification of the head and 
surety of all believers.— Edwards (J.) “ Works of,” Vol. IV. 
p. 66, and Vol. I. p. 596 sq. 

“T have no doubt that the imputation of Christ’s righteous- 
ness presupposes a w#zzo7 with him; since there is no perceiv- 
able fitness in bestowing benefits on one for another's sake, 
where there is 0 union or relation between. It is not sucha 
union, however, as that the actions of either become those of 
the other. Odedience itself may be and is zamputed, while its 
effects only are imparted. ” — Fuller (A.) “ Works of,” Vol. IT. 
p. 685. 

“As Christ the Holy can alone be, in an absolute sense, 
the object of divine love and complacency, so no man can be 
its object, except zn connection with Christ... . As one with 


him, the redeemed are presented to the eye of God.” — Neander 


(A.) “ Commentary on the 1st Ep. of John,” ad. loc. ii. 1, 2. 

“Union with Christ is the distinctive blessing of the 
gospel dispensation, in which every other is comprised, — 
justification, sanctification, adoption, and the future glori- 

ing of our bodies; all these are but different aspects of the 
one great truth,—that the Christian is ove with Christ.” —_ 
Litton (E. A.) “The Church of Christ,” p. 162. 

“ Believers are in Christ, so as to be partakers in all that he 
does, and has, and is. They died with him, and rose with 
him, and live with him, and in him are seated in heavenly 
places, When the eye of God looks on them they are found 
in Christ; and there is no condemnation in them that are in 
him ; and they are righteous in his righteousness, and loved 
with the love which rests on him, and are sons of God in his 
sonship, and heirs with him in his inheritance, and are 
soon to be glorified with him in his glory. And this stand- 
ing which they have in Christ, and the present and future 
portion which it secures, are contemplated in eternal coun- 
sels, and predestined before the foundation of the world.” — 
Bernard, Progress of Doc. in the N. T., p. 181. 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 273 


III. SANCTIFICATION.’ 


It has been already remarked that regeneration is the 
beginning of sanctification ; and it may be added that the lan- 
guage of the sacred writers respecting the new birth is some- 
times very sweeping, —as if regeneration completed the work 
which it begins; as if the production of a holy disposition 
were at the same time the destruction of all evil, or tendency 
to evil, in the ‘heart (2 Cor. v. 17; Gal. vi. 15; 1 Cor. vi. 11; 
1:2). 

But this cannot be a true interpretation of their words; 
for it is a doctrine wholly inconsistent with their ordinary 
teaching, and with their own experience. They recognized 
the existence of evil affections in the sincere disciples of 
Christ; they deplored and reproved the sins of those whom 
they called saints; they spoke of many as babes in Christ, 
and carnal, because they walked as men; they called upon 
believers to mortify the deeds of the body; and they exhorted 
their brethren to grow in the grace and knowledge of the 
Lord Jesus.” 

Whatever view, then, may be taken of the strong language 
mentioned above, — whether it be supposed to set forth the 
prescribed standard and perfect ideal of discipleship, or the 
nature of the new principle of life, without looking, for the 
moment, at the old which is destined to vanish away, or the 
end and fruitage of the seed implanted by grace as seen 
in its germ by the eye of faith, or the complete justification 
of the believer in Christ, by which his conscience is purified 
from dead works,— whatever, we say, may be the true inter- 
pretation of that language, there is a scriptural doctrine of 


1Qwen (J.) “On Sanctification”; Romaine (W.) “ The Triumph of Faith”; 
Deddridge (P.) “ Rise and Progress of Religion in the Soul”; Williams (W. R.) 
“Religious Progress”; Bunyan (J.) “The Pilgrim’s Progress,” “Holy War”; 
Sibbes (R.) “The Soul’s Conflict with itself, and Victory over itself by Faith”; 
Hare (J. C.) “The Mission of the Comforter”; Bonar (H.) “ Way of Holi- 
ness”; Princeton Theol. Essays, First Series, “ Sanctification,” p. 405 sq.; 
Bunyan (J-) 

2Braune (C.) “ Die Siinden der Wiedergebornen,” in St. u. Kr. 1847 s. 371 ff 


274 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


sanctification regarded as a progressive work in the soul; and 
in studying it we are to ascertain, if possible, the nature of 
the work, the author of it, the means of it, the period of it, 
and the certainty of it. 


I. THE NATURE OF SANCTIFICATION., 


1. The verb which is translated “sanctify” often denotes 
the action that renders a person holy, either (a) in a judicial 
sense, as the atonement of Christ (Heb. ii. 1f; x. 10, 14, 29; 
xlli. 12; or (2) in a moral and religious sense, as the work of 
the Spirit in connection with the gospel (John XViL..27,0mss 
1) Bhess;.wie23); a ‘Cora2) 

2. The corresponding noun generally denotes the effect of 
the action expressed by the verb; that is, a state of partial or 
complete godliness (1 Thess. iv. 3, 4, 7; 1 Tim. ii. 15; Rom. 
vi. 19, 32; Heb. xii. 14; 2 Thess. ii. 13.; 1 Peters 
the last two passages, the noun may denote the action itself, 
rather than its effect. 

To avoid confusion, we will endeavor to use the term in the 
second sense; and, thus understood, sanctification consists in 
a ‘gradual increase of faith, love, hope, &c., and a gradual 
decrease of pride, avarice, lust, or, in a word, selfishness. 
Perhaps the latter is best attained by means of the former. 
“Infinite toil,” says Arthur Helps, “would not enable you to - 
sweep away a mist; but, by ascending a little, you may dten 
look over it altogether.” As love to God and man increases, 
selfishness diminishes. 

II, THE AUTHOR OF SANCTIFICATION. 


In a general sense, God is the author of sanctification ; for 
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are equally con- 
cerned in having the polluted soul made pure. But in the 
special sense, here contemplated, the Holy Spirit accom- 
plishes the sanctification of the believer. This is affirmed,— 

1. Because spiritual discernment or knowledge ts traced to 
the Holy Spirit as its source (1 Cor. il. 13, 14, 15; 1 John ii, 
20, 27; Eph. i. 17; Col.i.g). In the first of these passages, 
Paul represents the unrenewed man as unable to receive the - 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 275 


things of God, because they are spiritually understood : while 
the renewed man rightly estimates all things; he appreciates 
the truth. In the second of them, John speaks of the Holy 
Spirit as an unction, or anointing, from Christ the Holy One. 
mata is restricted by the context to the essential nature or 
principles of the gospel,—to that which must be known by 
the Christian, in order to detect whatever is anti-Christian. 

2. Because the Christian virtues are traced to the Holy 
Spirit as their source (Gal. v. 22; Rom. xii. 3; 1 Cor. xii. 3. 
95.2 Cor, tv. 13 (cf. Phil. ii. 13). In the first of these pas- 
sages (Gal. v. 22), “love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, 
goodness, faith, meekness, self-control” are said to be the 
first fruit of the Spirit ; and in verse 5, of the same chapter, 
the Christian’s expectant waiting for future acceptance and 
glory is ascribed to the Spirit’s agency in his heart. In the 
second passage (Rom. xii. 3), Paul teaches that God gives to 
every believer the measure of faith which he possesses; and, 
if we interpret this in harmony with 1 Cor. xii. 3, 9, it will be 
seen that he gives this faith by the operation of the Holy 
Spirit in the soul. 

3. Because Christian conduct und worship are referred to 
the FHloly Spirit as their source (Rom. viii. 14; Gal. iv. 6; 
Eph. v. 18, 19). In the first of these texts (Rom. viii. 14), 
the gons of God are said to be /ed or moved by the Spirit ; in 
the second, Christian prayer is ascribed to the zzfluence of 
the Spirit (cf. Rom. viii. 26, on which Augustine remarks, 
“Non Spiritus Sanctus in semetipso, sed in nobis gemit, quia 
nos gemere facit”); and in the third (Eph. v. 18, 19), the 
proper singing of spiritual songs is made consequent on being 
filled with the Spirit (cf. also 1 Cor. xiv. 15; and Phil. i. 6). 

4. Because the Christian's conflict with his evil propensities, 
and his victory over them, are traced to the Holy Spirit (Rom. 
vill. 13; Gal. v.17). Inthe former of these passages (Rom. 
Vili. 13), we are taught, that, dy the assistance of the Spirit, 
believers slay, or put an end to the deeds of the flesh, — those 
acts which are prompted by a carnal mind; and, in the latter 
(Gal. v. 17), the Spirit is said to strive eagerly against the 
flesh, émvvuei (cf. v. 19, 20). 


4 


276 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


5. Because the spiritual life of believers depends upon thei 
wnion with Christ, who dwells in them by his Spirit. (John 
xv. 1-6; and perhaps xiv. 16-21; Eph. iii. 16, 17; Rom. 
viii. 8—10 (cf. 1 Cor. iii. 16; vi. 19; Eph. ii. 22). 

R. (@ The doctrine of the Trinity underlies and explains 
the various representations here given. 

R. (6) The indwelling or gracious working of the Spirit 
is, therefore, really the indwelling of the Father and the Son 
as well. 

6. Because the work of sanctification ts directly ascribed to 
the Holy Spirit (2 Thess. ii. 13; 1 Peter i; 23 2)@@nuaeee 
In the first of these texts, belief of the truth is placed in 
logical order after the Spirit’s working ; that depends on this. 
In the second, election is said to be realized in sanctification 
wrought by the Spirit. Both these texts refer specially to 
the first act of the sanctifying work, but without excluding 
the remainder. In the third, we have the progressive trans- 
formation of the believer into the image of Christ attributed 
virtually to the Spirit. “But we all, with unveiled face, 
beholding in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are changed into 
the same image, from glory to glory, as by the Lord, the 
Spirit.’ That is to say, the transformation is such a one as 
might be expected from the working of the Spirit of Christ. 

R. (a) Regeneration, inspiration, &c., are ascribed to the 
Holy Spirit; and, as the work of sanctification belongs to the 
same sphere of action with these, analogy would lead us to 
refer it to the same agent. 

R. (6) In the economy of our salvation, the office-work of 
the Holy Spirit seems to embrace whatever is done within 
the human soul by special divine agency. 


III THE MEANS OF SANCTIFICATION, 


The following are thought to be the most important : — 

A. Providential Discipline. B. Religious Truth. C. Chris- 
tian A’ction. D. Church Life. E. The Lord’s Day. 

A. PRovIDENTIAL DiscipLineE. We do not here refer to 
such discipline as giving one who is in doubt as to his duty a 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 277 


knowledge of God’s will, but rather as preparing him in spirit 
to profit by knowledge from any source; and we place this 
meais of sanctification first, because, in the order of nature, 
it goes before the others named, and because it is used by 
God alone. That Divine Providence does thus promote the 
sanctification of believers, we infer, — 

1. from the language of God’s word. (1) In respect to 
prosperity (Ps. cxlv. 7; Rom. ii. 4). (2) In respect to adver- 
mem (kom, v3 sq.; 1 Cor..xi. 32; Heb. xii. @; 2 Cor. iv..17); 
(3) In respect to all events (Rom. viii. 28; 2 Cor. iv. 15; 
Eph. v. 20; 1 Cor. iii. 21, 22). Query: Does the zara of 
Rom. viii. 28, include the sinning of those who love God? 
We do not find it easy to reply. Steudel (in the Chr. Rev. 
XXVI. p. 241) remarks that, “Sin —in case we do not give 
ourselves up to its power — often impels the conscience to 
hold the truth before us more distinctly and sharply than it 
would otherwise have done. A close observer of himself will 
scarcely be able to say that he has not been greatly bene- 
fited by a deeper knowledge of his own heart, and by a more 
thorough use of the Christian truth at his command, even 

_ when these were occasioned by a sin which revealed to him 
the depravity of his moral nature.” Chastisement stands 

_ related tg:sin; punishment to guilt: the former is corrective 
in its aif#; the latter retributive.— See Miller (J.) “The 
Doctrine of Sin’” I. p. 245. 

2. From experience and observation. Such is the union of 
soul and body in man, that the latter often solicits the former 
to sin; but its power to do this may be greatly weakened, 
for example, by disease. Hence the Christian may be made 
to experience want or weakness, for the purpose of fitting 
him to welcome the truth as a little child, with humility and 
trust in Christ. So, too, prosperity may increase his thank- 
fulness and power to benefit others. When it will do this, 
God is able and willing to bestow it. Query: Does God so 
direct events as to make them promote, in the highest 
degree, the sanctification of each believer? Or may that of 
one be delayed for the sake of greater good to others? For 


278 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


example, if a man could know that a certain course of labor 
would do less to make him holy than another, would it then 
be certain that he ought to choose the latter instead of the 
former? 

B. Rericious Trutu. It has been observed that every 
Christian emotion, desire, purpose, and action is called into 
being by a perception of truth. Holy living is completely 
dependent on true knowledge. Right moral feelings and 
actions must be called forth, if at all, by the presence of 
suitable thoughts in the mind: 

As to the relation of truth, as a means of sanctification to 
the Holy Spirit, its living Author, it will be enough to say, 
that, while the heart is made susceptible by the action of the 
Spirit, every truth presented serves to elicit and strengthen 
those affections, desires, or volitions which respond to its 
nature. 

Without undervaluing the religious truth which is made 
known to us by the works of God in creation and providence, 
we must limit our study to that which is taught by Holy 
Writ; for, however important the voices of Nature may be to 
those who have not the Bible, they add very little to the 
contents of this book. 

To show that religious truth is used in sancigpying be- 
lievers, we refer, — 

1. Zo the direct testimony of God’s word (John vi. 63; 
XVil? 17; vill. 32; Heb. v. 12-14; 2 Tim. ii, 16937 eee 
ili, I, 2; 1 Peter ii. 2; 2 Peter i. 3, 4; Ps. cxix Ogee 
104, 130, 165). Divine truth is spoken of in John xvii. 17, as 
the element or atmosphere in which the sanctification is to be 
wrought by God. The word “sanctify” may here include 
two ideas: namely, that of consecration to a holy service, — 
preaching; and that of moral preparation for the service. 
With this passage may be compared 2 Peter iii. 18. 

2. To the implied testimony of God’s word (Eph. i. 8, 9, 
17, 18 (cf. John xiv. 17; xv. 26; xvi. 13); Eph. iv. gee 
Cor. xiv. 3-5, and many other places.) 

3. To the nature of the human soul. For the word of - 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 279 


God contains just those moral and religious truths which 
tend to beget faith, love, hope, and every other holy exercise. 

C. Curistian Action. Under this head, we shall speak 
of only certain forms of Christian action, since other forms 
may be conveniently treated elsewhere. 

I. OF Secret Worsuip. By worship in general, we 
mean the homage of the soul paid to God in view of his 
attributes and prerogatives. This homage may be directly 
expressed in praise, and then it involves a corresponding 
admission of the worshipper’s dependence, and perhaps guilt ; 
or it may be implied only, while the worshipper testifies his 
sense of dependence and guilt. In further considering the 
topic before us, we shall confine our attention to the nature, 
the duty, and the efficacy of prayer. 

I. The nature of prayer. Prayer is said to have four 
elements: namely (1) adoration, or homage to God in view 
of his nature, or the sum of his perfections, sometitnes 
expressed by the single word, “ holiness’; (2) thanksgiving, 
or homage to God in view of his beneficence; (3) confession 
of sin, or homage to God in view of his righteousness; 
(4) petition for favors, or homage to God in view of his grace 
and faithfulness. 

It may be remarked : — 

(z) That prayer should always be offered by us, either to 
Christ himself, or to God in the name of Christ. This is 
evident (1) from the words of Christ to the eleven (John xiv. 
13; XV. 16; xvi. 23, 24). (2) From the words and example of 
Dispapesties (Acts 1, 24.5/ il. 21} vil. 593 ix. 14,215 xxi. 16; 
1 Cor. i. 2). (3) From his relation to believers. He is their 
Head ; and only in consideration of his work do they receive 
divine grace. Hence the Lord’s prayer was not given as a 
permanent form, nor even as a complete model of Christian 
prayer Yet the paraphrase of this prayer, attributed to 
Bernard, illustrates the wonderful fulness of its meaning, and 
is worthy of transcription. “Our Father— by right of crea- 
tion, by bountiful provision, by gracious adoption; Who art 
in heaven — the throne of thy glory, the portion of thy chil- 


280 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


dren, the temple of thine angels; Hallowed be thy name— 
by the thoughts of our hearts, by the words of our lips, by 
the work of our hands; Thy kingdom come —of Providence 
to defend us, of grace to refine us, of glory to crown us; Thy 
well be done on earth as it is in heaven—toward us without 
resistance, by us without compulsion, universally without 
exception; Gzve us this day our daily bread —of necessity 
for our bodies, of eternal life for our souls; And forgive us 
our trespasses —against the commands of thy law, against 
the grace of thy gospel; As we forgive those that trespass 
against us—by defaming our characters, by embezzling our 
property, by abusing our persons; And lead us not into 
temptation, but deliver us from evil—of overwhelming afflic- 
tion, of worldly enticement, of errors seduction, of sinful 
affections; For thine is the kingdom and the power and the 
glory forever —thy kingdom governs all, thy power subdues 
all, thy glory is above all; Aszex—as it is in thy purposes, 
so is it in thy promises, so be it in our prayers, so shall it be 
to thy praise.” 

(4) That prayer should always be submissive, instead of 
dictatorial. Strong faith will make it such; for faith leans 
upon Christ, trusts his wisdom, goodness, and promise. No 
prayer is acceptable to God unless it be offered in faith; and 
no dictatorial prayer is oftered in faith. i 


“ And so I sometimes think our prayers 
Might well be merged in one; 
And nest and perch and hearth and church 
Repeat, ‘ Thy will be done.’” 


Whittier. 

But this feeling is not inconsistent with the most affec- 
tionate and importunate pleading for what is believed to be 
in harmony with the will of God. 

(c) That prayer should be very often vocal. There are, 
indeed, feelings which cannot be uttered, and there are times 
when silent desires are enough; but, when it can be, secret 
prayer ought, we think, to be vocal; for the utterance of our 
desires by the voice strengthens them, and expels foreign. 
thoughts. 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 281 


II. The duty of prayer. Nearly all who believe in a per- 
sonal God concede that praise, thanks, and confession should 
be offered to him; but many professed theists call in question 
the propriety of our asking God to grant any special blessing. 
Such a petition they deem useless, if not disrespectful, to 
the All-Wise. Says one of this class, “I cannot express my 
repugnance at the notion that supreme intelligence and w s- 
dom can be influenced by the suggestion of any human 


mind, however great.’— (“The Prayer-Gauge Debate,” p. 
122.) But we hold that prayer as petition is a Christian 
duty :— 


1. Because it is commanded (Jer. xxix. 7; Matt. v. 44; 
Mae 36, xxvii 40; Luke xviii 1 sgq.; 1 Thess. v: 27; 
iets > Vv. 16;.1 Peter iv. 7). 

2. Because it is encouraged. (Jer. xxix. 12, 13; Ezek. 
memeo7y, Math vil. 7, IL; xviii. 19; xxi. 22; Luke xt 13 
(cf. 1 Sam. xii. 23). 

3. Because it is suitable. A child may fitly ask favors 
of a parent, and the Christian is a child of God. 

4. Because it is spontaneous. The Christian prays, as a 
matter of course, just as he believes and loves. 


Ill. THE EFFICACY OF PRAYER. 


It may be truly said that prayer is one of the best exer- 
cises of Christian trust, love, humility, and holy desire; and 
that, according to a general law of our being, every power or 
princivle, every affection or desire, is strengthened by fit 
exercise. Hence, if it can be offered honestly and intelli- 
gently, it must tend to the sanctification of Christians. 

It may also be truly said, that every Christian who prays at 
all will be certain to pray for his own sanctification; and, 
therefore, if God bestows blessings, at the request of his 
children, which he would not otherwise bestow, prayer will 
secure sanctifying grace. 

In proof that prayer is thus answered, reference may be 
made with confidence, — 

(1) To the direct testimony of Scripture (Matt. vii. 7 sq.; 


282 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


xvill, 19; xxi. 22; Luke xi.-13; Jas. i. 5 Sq. aie 
sq.; 1 John v. 14 sq.; Ex. xxxii. 7 sq)! (2) Tompiesimemec: 
testimony of Scripture.— See the passages alleged to prove 
the duty of prayer; for God does not command and encour- 
age a vain service. (3) To the moral nature which God has 
given us,—a nature which, in its renovated state, expects 
such answers. 


“More things are wrought by prayer 
Than this world dreams of. Wherefore let thy voice 
Rise like a fountain for me night and day. 
For what are men better than sheep or goats, 
That nourish a blind life within the brain, 
If, knowing God, they lift not hands of prayer 
Both for themselves and those who call them friends? 
For so the whole round earth is every way 
Bound by gold chains about the feet of God.” 


Alas! those who doubt the efficacy of prayer have little. 
knowledge of a personal God ; for no philosophical objection 
can be made to the doctrine that God answers prayer, which 
cannot be made to the doctrine of Divine Providence in 
general. ‘ 

Yet scientific men have pressed the uniformity of nature 
into service against the doctrine that God ever answers 
prayer by “physical equivalents.” A formal review of their 
arguments would occupy too much space; but a few remarks 
may be offered in reply to them.” 

(a) It is irrational to deny that God can use the forces of 
nature for the accomplishment of special ends; for man is 
able to do this on a large scale. Says Wallace, “We can 
anticipate the time when the earth will produce only culti- 
vated plants and animals; when man’s selection shall have 
supplanted ‘natural selection’; and when the ocean will be 


1 Tennyson (A.) “ Morte d’ Arthur.” 

2Hessey (J. A.) “Recent Difficulties on Prayer”; “The Prayer Gauge 
Debate,” ed. by J. O. Means; Romanes (G. J.) ‘‘Christian Prayer and General 
Laws”; Lord (E.) “ Prayer and Meditation,” Am. Presby., and Theol. Rev. 1863, 
p: 407 sq.; Graves (S.) “ The Efficacy of Prayer,” Chr. Rev. Vol. XXIII. p.620 sq, 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 283 


the only domain in which that power can be exerted, which, 
for countless cycles of ages, ruled supreme over the earth.” ! 

But human intelligence and power are finite. Not so 
those of God! As author of natural forces, and intimately 
present with them, he can surely, in ways imperceptible to 
man, direct them to the accomplishment of such ends as he 
pleases. If prayer is acceptable to him, and if ne chooses to 
answer it, by making use of physical forces, there is nothing 
in the known character of these forces, or in his known rela- 
tion to them, to forbid his doing it. 

(2) It is irrational to deny that God may add to the perma- - 
nent forces of nature for the accomplishment of special ends 
in answer to prayer. Says Romanes, “No man of science 
will hesitate to admit that most, if not all petitions, would 
require for their answer but the creation of force alone. We 
can see plainly enough that there is no prayer which may 
not receive a physical equivalent, provided that the Being 
tofwhom it is offered is able and willing to originate the 
adequate physical conditions.”* There is, moreover, “no 
argument in support of the belief that the creative energy is 
spent or suspended.”* Still further, “An alteration in the 
total sum of energy, requisite to produce any physical result 
in answer to prayer, might, in comparison with that sum, be 
inadequately represented by the difference between the mass 
of a chyle molecule, which is indefinable° by the highest 
powers of the microscope, and the mass of the solar system.” 
In other words, the added force thus introduced might be 
wholly inappreciable to sense, wholly unknown to man, un- 
less God should be pleased to reveal the fact of such con- 
tinuous and gracious exercise of his power. 

(c) It is irrational to deny that God may have preadjusted 
the forces of nature in such a way as to answer by them 
some of the prayers which are offered by his children. His 
knowledge is perfect, embracing from the foundation of the 
world every act of every one of his creatures. Why, then, 


1“ Natural Selection,” p. 326. 
“Christian Prayer and General Laws,” p. 143. ‘$Id.p.159. ‘Id. p. 150 


284 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


may he not have provided for the answer of acceptable 
prayer, in some instances, through the working of natural 
laws? It seems to us-that no one who admits the omnis- 
cience and wisdom of God can question the possibility, or 
indeed, the probability of such answers to prayer. 

(dz) It is impossible to deny the use of physical forces in 
answering prayer, without denying that it is answered at all; 
for all modifications of mental action are accompanied by 
corresponding modifications of the substance of the brain, 
and so of the body. Thus spiritual forces change the action 
of physical forces; and indirectly, if not directly, God makes 
use of the latter, as well as of the former, in answering 
prayer. But is it credible that God cannot do that directly, 
which he can do mediately? Or is it reasonable to suppose 
that man can do what God cannot, in using the powers of 
nature to accomplish rational ends ? 

The following queries may also be suggested, before leaving 
this subject :— 

(a) If the influence of the Holy Spirit is presupposed in 
acceptable prayer, what need is there of praying for his 
influence ? 

(2) Is some additional influence of the Spirit always given 
in answer to earnest prayer for the same? 

(c) Does the Holy Spirit ordinarily direct the minds and 
desires of Christians towards special objects, —say per- 
sons, —or does he enkindle holy affections, and leave them 
to the guidance of the word and providence of God in select- 
ing objects for prayer? Is his influence on the mind, or on 
the heart? Is it prophetic or quickening ? 

(2) In what sense, and to what extent, may one believe 
that his own prayers are answered? or that a particular 
blessing was conditioned on his own praying ? 


II. OF LABOR FOR THE GOOD OF OTHERS. 


It is not easy to over-rate the benefit of Christian effort for 
the salvation of men; for such effort brings into exercise 
almost every Christian affection, while it prevents the growth 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 285 


of evil propensities. It cultivates the manly virtues of piety, — 
boldness, frankness, self-forgetfulness, sympathy,— and tends 
to cheerfulness and hope. 

Hence, as a rule, monastic life is unfavorable to growth in 
grace. If long continued, it is almost certain to develop a 
one-sided piety, — self-scrutiny becoming too minute, and the 
free and natural action of love being prevented. If a man 
love not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love 
God, whom he hath not seen? Love to God is most genuine 
and healthful when it is accompanied by love to man; and 
love to man is best cultivated by persistent and direct effort 
to secure his eternal welfare. 

Yet it may be admitted that seclusion for a brief period, 
with a view to deeper self-knowledge and more protracted 
communion with God, especially when looking forward to 
some great service, has proved, in many instances, useful. 
It has given one a knowledge of man, if not of men; of his 
own soul, if not of society; and has opened the mind to the 
much-needed influence of the invisible world, to a degree not 
easily reached without seclusion. 

That labor for the good of others is conducive to personal 
sanctification may be shown by an appeal (2) To the word of 
God (John vii. 17; Ps. cxix. 100). In commenting on the 
second passage, Dr. South quaintly remarks, “ David got the 
start of them in point of obedience, and thereby outstripped 
them, at length, in point of knowledge.” (4) To the nature of 
true,religion, the highest principle of which is love; for love 
leads to action for the good of others. (c) To the constitu- 
tion of the human soul; for not only is man commanded to 
love his neighbor as himself, but his soul is so constituted 
that its health requires him to do this. Yet this love will 
be morbid and puny when it leads to no action for the 
highest welfare of men. (d) To the history of the Christian 
religion. Working disciples, like Paul and John, Athanasius 
and Augustine, Luther and Calvin, Bunyan and Wesley, 
Edwards and Judson, have made the greatest progress in the 
divine life. 


286 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


D. CuurcH Lire. “A Christian Church is an association 
of believers in Christ for the observance, the maintenance, 
and the extension of the Christian religion.”! The power of 
Church life to promote the sanctification of believers may be 
discovered (1) in the spirit of obedience to Christ which it 
cultivates; (2) in the practice of social worship which it 
maintains; (3) in the increase of Christian knowledge which 
it secures; (4) in the labor for others which it organizes and 
stimulates; and (5) in the watchfulness and consistency 
which it promotes. We must give attention to each of these 
points. — 

I. Jt cultivates a spirit of obedience to Christ. For it 
requires, at the outset, a solemn act of obedience, —a public 
profession of faith in Christ, and allegiance to him. No act 
in a Christian’s life is adapted to fill his mind with greater 
awe and thankfulness than that of being buried with Christ 
in baptism. It is an act never to be repeated, deliberate, 
irreversible; and, by its very solitariness, it lays hold of his 
imagination, and repeats its lesson again and again to the 
close of life. Besides, there is self-denial in it: the offence of 
the cross has not ceased; and, if it clings to one act of obedi- 
ence more than to others, that act is baptism. Perhaps this 
was intended by the Saviour as one check toa rash profession 
of faith. 

In a less marked degree, church-life is, from first to last, a 
school of obedience. It must be continued when the affec- 
tions languish, when doubt creeps into the heart, when cour- 
age wanes, because it is commanded. It must be persisted 
in against the opposition and contempt of the world, because 
it is commanded. And, by this obedience, it cultivates an 
open, manly spirit, —the heroic virtues; for, in church-life, 
the Christian has his place apart from the world, under the 
banner of his Lord: and, after a time, obedience becomes 
easy. 

Il. J¢ maintains the practice of social worship. And, by 
social worship, we mean all worship in connection with 

1 Ripley (H. J.) “ Church Polity.” 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 287 


others. It will be in place to speak briefly of the duty and 
benefits cf social worship. 

1. The duty of social worship is evident (1) From its 
being enjoined in the word of God (Heb. x. 25; Col. iii. 16). 
(2) From its being encouraged in the same word (Matt. xviii. 
19, 20). (3) From its being practised by apostolic men (Acts 
1, 13 Sq.; il. I sq.). (4) From its being implied in the organi- 
zation of church and family. 

2. The denefits of social worship. This form of worship 
promotes growth in grace, — 

(1) By enkindling higher devotion to God in the heart. 
We are beings of sympathy, easily affected by the feelings of 
those around us. Hence religious emotion is increased by 
contact with religious emotion. Besides, the truths of the 
Bible are set in new lights by the experience and meditation 
of different minds. The old is made new, and gains new 
power over the heart. 

_ (2) By bringing into livelier exercise brotherly love. “The 
sight of the eye affects the heart.” We do not often feel a 
very deep love for those who are strangers tous. As arule, 
we love our fellow-Christians, as such, in proportion to our 
knowledge of their Christian life and experience. 

(3) By securing a special blessing from God. “If two of 
you shall agree on earth concerning any thing that they shall 
ask, it shall be done for them by my Father who is in 
heaven ; for, where two or three are gathered together in 
my name, there am I in the midst of them.” United prayer 
and worship do, therefore, entitle us to expect signal favors 
from God through Christ. 

It is not, indeed, easy to overstate the spiritual benefits of 
social and public worship to believers ; yet for this they are 
indebted to the Christian church. It preserves multitudes 
from apostasy; it stimulates multitudes to higher activity; it 
unites the moral life and force of many persons; it augments 
their faith, love, hope, zeal, and thereby the efficiency of their 
prayer. 

III. l¢ secures an increase of Christian knowledge. This 


288 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


it does (1) by the regular preaching of the gospel, which it 
supports ; (2) by the study of God’s word, which this preach- 
ing induces; (3) by the vivid representation of Christian 
truth, — central, vital truth, in the ordinances. 

IV. Jt organizes and stimulates labor for the good of 
others. This is one great end of church-life. Thus asso- 
ciated, Christians can act with more success in diffusing the 
gospel and saving men; and, the more effectually they are 
able to labor, the more earnestly will they do so. Success 
stimulates effort; numbers do the same. There is, or should 
be, in every church, a kind of esprit de corps which excites a 
degree of enthusiasm in the several members, animating 
them to greater boldness and activity. But seeking a high 
and holy object, as the honor of Christ and the salvation of 
men, is always beneficial to the moral nature of him who 
seeks it. Hence church-life tends to sanctify the believer's 
heart ; to render him more unselfish, hopeful, magnanimous. 

Perhaps we ought to add, — 

V. It promotes, by its discipline, watchfulness and con- 
sistency. Many a Christian has been saved from apostasy by 
the consciousness of being under the eye of the church, and 
liable to its discipline ; and many a one has doubtless, like 
the incestuous man at Corinth, been led to repentance by 
solemn exclusion from the church. 

E. THE Lorn’s Day. This topic may be subdivided into 
three: namely, The Duty of Keeping the Lord’s Day, The 
Manner of Keeping it, and the Relation of it to Sanctifi- 
cation." 


1 Baxter (R.) “The Divine Appointment of the Lord’s Day,” Works, Vol. 
XIII. p. 369 sq.; Hessey (J. A.) “Sunday: its Origin, History, and Present 
Obligation”; Wilson (D.) “The Divine Authority and Perpetual Obligation of 
the Lord’s Day”; Gurney (J. J.) “ Brief Remarks on the History, Authority, and 
Use of the Sabbath”; Gilfillan (J.) “‘The Sabbath viewed in the Light of 
Keason, Revelation, and History”; Stone (J. S.) “Lectures on the Institution of 
the Sabbath”; Arnold (A. N.) “The Christian Sabbath,” in Bap. Quar. for 
1868; Dwight (T.) “Theology,” &c. Vol. III. pp. 222-273; Bacon (G. B.) 
“The Sabbath Question”; Brown (T. B.) “ Thoughts suggested by the Perusal 
of Gilfillan, and other authors, on the Sabbath”; Turretin (F.) “ Institutio 
Theologiz,” &c., Loc. XI. Ques. 13 and 14; Hengstenberg (E. W.} “ Ueber den 
Tag des Herrn.” 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 289 


1. The Duty of Keeping the Lord’s Day. 


Of the several theories maintained by Christians as to the 
Lord’s day, the following deserve particular notice: (a) That 
men are under no obligation to keep it by abstaining from 
secular business; either (1) because reason and Paul unite in 
declaring that all days are alike, —a view which we need not 
pause to refute, or (2) because the fotirth commandment of 
the decalogue and the original appointment of the Sabbath 
require all men to keep the seventh day of the week holy. 
But this view is inconsistent with the language of Paul in 
Col. ii. 16; Gal. iv. 9, 10; and Rom. xiv. §; with the testi- 
mony of Christian writers, like Justin Martyr, as to the prac- 
tice of the early churches; and with the principle laid down 
-by Christ, that the Sabbath was made for man, — that is, for 
his highest good. 

(6) That by the authority of Christ, the first day of the 
week has been substituted for the seventh,—the day being 
changed, but the command to observe it by abstaining from 
all secular labor remaining in full force. The defenders of 
this theory insist that the decalogue is binding on Christians, 
from the first command to the last, though God has seen fit 
to ordain that the Lord’s day shall take the place of the 
Jewish Sabbath. This theory has prevailed extensively in 
England, Scotland, and the United States; and a great deal: 
may be justly said in its favor. 

Yet it does not seem to be entirely consistent with the lan- 
guage of Paul in the passages cited above, with the views. of 
fair-minded Christian writers in the early Church, or with the 
general character of the new dispensation. It appears. to: 
emphasize unduly the legal side of the question, attaching 
more importance to the fourth commandment of the deca- 
logue, as directly applicable to the Lord’s day, than is 
altogether safe. The adherents of this view are careful to 
call the Lord's day the Christian Sabbath,—a designation 
which is never given to it in the New Testament, or by any 
Christian writer of the first three centuries. 


290 Manual of Systematic Theology 


(c) That the duty of keeping the Lord’s day rests entirely 
on the practice and authority of the church. Many who 
accept this theory believe that the practice began in the days 
of the apostles ; but they do not admit that this circumstance 
is of decisive importance. They may be divided into two 
classes ; namely, those who concede to the church authority 
in such matters, and those who are willing to comply, in 
some measure, with a good and useful custom. 

This theory overlooks the real grounds of Christian obliga- 
tion in this matter, and tends to great laxity in observing the 
Lord’s day. Where it prevails, recreation, if not business, 
will be sure to encroach upon the proper use of the day, as a 
period for religious worship and instruction, and thus defeat 
the chief end of its appointment. 

(d) That the duty of consecrating the Lord’s day to reli- 
gious uses rests upon THE AUTHORITATIVE EXAMPLE OF THE 
APOSTLES (Acts xx.'7; 1 Cor. xvi. 2; Rev. 1 1@;)epsaeemens 
confirmed (1) by the practice of the carly churches (see the 
works quoted supra); (2) by the Sabbath-keeping enjoined on 
the children of Israel (Ex. xx. 8 sq.); (3) by the original sancti- 
fication of the seventh day (Gen. ii. 2, 3); and (4) by the words 
of Christ, affirming that the Sabbath was made for man 
(Mark ii. 27). 

The practice of the early churches tends to establish very 
firmly the distinction between the Lord’s day and the Jewish 
Sabbath. The fourth command of the decalogue proves that 
the Israelites needed to have one day in seven set apart 
from secular toil to religious service; the primeval institution 
of the Sabbath shows that it was meant for all mankind; and 
the reason of its existence, declared by Christ, fully accounts 
for the change from the last day of the week to the first, 
made by the apostles. For, since the resurrection of Christ, 
the first day of the week takes precedence of every other in 
religious interest, and it is practically impossible for Christians 
to feel as deep an interest in the finishing of the work of cre- 
ation as they do in the finishing of the work of atonement. 

It should be borne in mind, that when God rested from 


The Doctrine of Salvation. . 291 


creating, —a kind of secular work,— he entered at once on 
the moral and religious training of man; so that Jesus could 
say, “ My Father worketh until now, and I work” (John v. 
17); that is, even on the Sabbath, and, perhaps, especially 
on the Sabbath. But this primeval training was carried for- 
ward, chiefly, by means of the light which shines from crea- 
tion, —a light which has proved insufficient for fallen man. 
Not the knowledge of creation, but the knowledge of redemp; 
tion, provided by God, is what sinful man most needs. 
Hence the day which commemorates a completed atonement, 
ready to be applied by the gospel and grace of Christ, is the 
day of divinest significance and greatest spiritual beincuee 
for sinful men. 

This theory is in perfect accord with the doctrine of Paul, 
and with the character of the new dispensation. It recog- 
nizes the very important bearing of the primeval and Jewish 
Sabbath on the question of keeping the Lord’s day; and it 
assigns a proper place to the inspired guidance of the 
churches by the apostles. 


2. The Manner of Keeping the Lords Day. 


It has been shown above, that it is the duty of Christians 
to consecrate the day to religious uses. But how strictly ? 
Must they be governed by the same rules as were the Jews 
in abstaining from every kind of secular toil? Or have. they 
greater freedom in this respect? Lanta 

It -must doubtless be conceded that much is left to their 
own judgment and conscience, to their love of Christ, and 
desire to win men to his service. But with the general duty 
made plain, and with the law of love written upon their 
hearts, it is to be presumed that they will keep the day very 
much as Christ kept the Jewish Sabbath, finding no occasion 
for secular business or idle self-indulgence. Hence it may be ° 
remarked that their employments on the Lord’s day should 
 be:— 

(a) Those which are either embraced in religious service, or 
are immediately prerequisite tozt. By religious service is 


292 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


meant not only worship in the sanctuary, or elsewhere, but 
all labor for the salvation of men. 

(4) Those which are evidently necessary for the preservation 
of life and health. A tender Christian conscience will guide 
one to the right application of this general rule; especially, 
with the aid of Christ’s example. : 

(c) Those which are required to prevent or to relieve severe 
suffering in man or beast. Particular applications of this 
rule must also be left to the enlightened conscience. If it 
is honestly accepted, and interpreted in the light of the 
Saviour’s conduct, few mistakes will be made. 

The idea of rest was more predominant in the Jewish law 
than it should be in Christian practice; for spiritual joy and 
activity are characteristic of the followers of Christ. Their 
religion is not conservative chiefly, but aggressive; it should 
go forth with joyful step, conquering and to conquer. 

In saying that it is the duty of Christians to keep the 
Lord’s day in the manner specified, it is meant that all who 
have a knowledge of the Christian religion ought to do this; 
but it is not meant that some may compel others to do it. 
As to the Lord’s day as a civil institution, something will be 
said in “Christian Ethics”; but, in this place, reference is - 
made solely to the personal obligation of every man to do the 
will of God in this respect. 


3. The Relation of the Lord’s Day to Sanctification. 

This may be indicated in a very few words. A proper use 
of the Lord's day affords opportunity,— , 

(2) For protracted religious study and worship, as well in 
public as in private; (4) For special Christian effort in behalf 
of others, and especially of those who are impenitent ; and 
(c) For breaking the current of worldly thought and desire, 
and thus gradually eradicating sinful affections, as well as 
strengthening those that are holy. 


Iv. THE PERIOD OF SANCTIFICATION, 


-By this is meant the period during which sanctification is 
yet partial, but progressive, —the subject of it being not yet 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 293 


free from sin, but becoming so through the power of divine 
grace. And this period, it is supposed, closes with the life | 
of the believer on earth. Beginning with regeneration, it is 
terminated by death and entrance into paradise. 

In support of this view, reference is made to the lan- 
guage of John in his first Epistle (i. 8— 10), — “If we say that 
we have not sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not 
in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous 
to forgive us the sins, and to cleanse us from every un- 
righteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make 
Him a liar, and His word is not in us.” It is to be observed, 
that, in the eighth verse, John puts himself in the same class 
with his Christian readers, and that he employs a verb in the 
present tense, thus referring to the present state of believers; 
also, that, in the ninth verse, he associates himself with those. 
who should seek forgiveness ; and that, in the tenth verse, he 
uses the perfect tense to describe that which has come over 
from the past into the present. This view of his language 
agrees with that of Calvin, Turretin, Lucke, De Wette, and 
Neander. 

Yet it has been thought by some to be irreconcilable with 
other statements of the same Epistle (for example, iii. 9; v. 
18). “Every one who has been begotten from God doeth not 
sin, because his seed remaineth in him; and he cannot sin, 
because he has been begotten from God.” —“ We know that 
every one who has been begotten from God sinneth not ; but 
he that was begotten from God keepeth himself and the 
wicked one toucheth him not.” 

This language is no doubt remarkable; but, if it proves 
that any Christian lives without committing sin, it proves 
that every Christian does the same. And, if it affirms that 
all Christians live without sinning, it contradicts the testi 
mony of John himself, as well as the whole tenor of Scrip- 
ture. — (See for example, 1 John ii. 1; v. 16; and Gal. ii. 11.) 
This, therefore, cannot be its true meaning, however difficult 
it may be to ascertain that meaning. 

But it has been supposed to signify one of three things, 


204 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


namely (a) That, in so far as the new principle. of life is con- 
cerned, the regenerate man does not commit sin. . In this 
case, that which is highest and best in the believer is spoken 
of as the person himself, even as Paul in the seventh of 
Romans says, “But if what I desire not, that I do, it is.no 
more I that perform it, but the sin that dwelleth in me.” 
Thus “the new man” and “the old man” both exist in the 
Christian (Rom. vi. 6; Eph. iv. 22, 24; Col. iii. 9 sq). 
(2) That one who has been begotten of God cannot sin delib- 
erately, habitually, or persistently, since, by the grace of God, 
the new disposition is stronger than the old. (¢) That one 
who has been made a child of God will not be suffered to 
apostatize and perish. The first of these interpretations is 
preferable to the second, and the second to the third; though 
the third may express a truth which is elsewhere taught. 

It does not appear, therefore, that John has written any 
thing in this Epistle inconsistent with the interpretation 
given to his language in the first chapter. More than this, 
his language in. that chapter agrees with the teaching of 
James, of Peter, of Paul, and of Christ himself (James iii. 2; 
ii, 11; Rom. viii. 10, 13°; Gal. v. 17; Phil 1. a2Qg ieee 
18; Matt. vi. 12; see also 1 Kings vill. 46; Proves 
Eccl. vii. 20). 

It may also be remarked, in this connection, that there 
seems to be no sufficient evidence of the existence of two, 
and only two, great classes of Christians, namely, a small 
one, embracing persons who exercise sanctifying faith and 
enjoy what has been called “the higher Christian life”; and: 
a large one, embracing persons who have justifying faith, but 
know not the blessedness of perfect trust. It seems more in 
harmony with the representations of Christian life in the 
Bible, and with the experience of believers in every age, to 
say that the varieties of true life and progress are manifold, 
no two disciples standing on exactly the same plane. 


1See “The Doctrine of the Higher Christian Life compared with the Teach- 
ing Of the Holy Scriptures,” by the author of this manual; Owen (J.) “On the 
Remainder of Indwelling Sin,” and “ On the Mortification of Sin in Believers” 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 295 


But are Christians set free from the power of sin at death? 
Or do they enter the other world with the viper still in their 
bosom? Is the period between death and resurrection a 
kind of purgatory to many of the saints? Or is paradise the 
home and rest of all who have trusted in Christ? The Bible 
knows nothing of a purgatory for the saints after death. It 
teaches, rather, that the state of both the righteous and the 
wicked will be fixed from the hour when they leave this 
word (Luke xvi. 22 sq.; xxiii. 43; Phil. i..23; 2 Cor. v, 8)." 

Sanctification will therefore be completed at death, but not 
before. The conflict with sin will be more or less arduous 
till the call to pass beyond the river comes. 


“The way is long, my child! - But it shall be 
Not one step longer than is best for thee; 
And thou shalt know, at last, when thou shalt stand 
Safe at the goal, how I did take thy hand, 
And quick and straight 
Lead to heaven’s gate 
My child!” 


V. THE CERTAINTY OF SANCTIFICATION. 


The question may now be asked, Is it certain that persons 
who have been truly regenerated by the Holy Spirit will be 
preserved and carried forward in the new life unto the end? 
That they will be kept by the power of God through faith 
unto salvation? Or is it probable that the work of sanctify- 
ing them will be arrested and brought to nought, in many 
instances, so that men who have been made partakers of the 
Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God, and the 
powers of the world to come, will finally perish? 

That some, at least, will “fall from grace” is confidently 
asserted by a large class of devout Christians ; and the argu- 
ments which they bring forward in support of their belief 


Hodge (C.) “ Systematic Theology,” III. p. 245 sq.: Oosterzee (J. J. van) “Chris- 
tian Dogmatics,” II. p. 657 sq.; Herzog (R. ey s. v. “ Heiligung”’; Harless 
( Dr.) “Christian Ethics,” s. 33 sq. 
1 Hovey (A.) “State of Men after Death.” ® 
+ 2 Hodge (A. A.) “Outlines of Theology,” >. 425 sq. 


296 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


are worthy of careful examination. The most important are 
these : — ‘ 

(a) That analogy favors their doctrine; for not only Adam 
and Eve, but also holy angels, fell from a state of moral 
purity. By parity of reason, it may be presumed that men 
imperfectly sanctified will also, in some instances, fall. 

In reply to this argument, it is to be said, that the relation 

of Christians to the Saviour is peculiar. In all probability, 
the grace of God is given to them in larger measure, and ona 
different principle, than it was given to our first parents, or 
to angels in heaven. It is not-therefore legitimate to infer 
the lapse of believers in Christ from that of beings superior 
to them in goodness, but standing in other relations to divine 
grace. 
(6) That Christians are exhorted to persevere; and exhorta- 
tion to perseverance implies a danger of the opposite. — (See 
Rev. ii. 10, 25 ; Heb. iv. 1-3, 11). But, in answer to this, it 
may be affirmed that exhortations to perseverance hardly 
prove that those exhorted will ot persevere. At most, they 
imply that wzthout the exhortations, they might not perse- 
vere. Moral means must be used in accomplishing moral 
ends. 

(c) That Christians are warned against apostatizing, and 
must therefore be in danger of this sin (Heb. vi. 4-6; x. 
26--32; 2 Peter ii. 20-22; iii. 7). The same reply may be 
made to this argument as to the preceding. Warnings 
against apostasy do not prove that any of those addressed 
will apostatize; they only prove that the use of means is 
necessary to prevent them from committing so dreadful a sin. 
The principle involved is aptly illustrated by the narrative of 
Luke in Acts (cf. xxvii. 22-25, with verse 31). Contingency 
and certainty are compatible in the government of God. 

(@) That cases of apostasy are introduced hypothetically by 
the sacred writers ; and from these the same inference may 
be drawn, as from exhortations and warnings (Rom. xvi. 15 ; 
1 Cor. viii. 11; John xv. 1-6; Matt. xxv. 1-13; Luke viii. 
11 sq.). In this case also, the same answer may be made as 


The Doctrine of Salvation. 207 


in the two preceding cases. The passages appealed to are 
virtually warnings against apostasy. They recognize the 
moral freedom of Christians, and the natural possibility of 
their turning utterly away from Christ ; but they are written 
to prevent such a fall: and none of them show that any who 
are truly united to Christ will finally be lost.’ 

(e) That instances of final apostasy are relzted in the 
Bible, —as those of Saul, Judas, Hymenzeus, Alexander, and 
others. 

In studying the history of Saul, we find no evidence that 
he was ever a child of God. — (See 1 Sam. x. 9-13; Xiii. 13, 
14; xv. 10 Sq.; xvi. 13, 14). The gift of the Spirit which he 
had for a time was apparently official, and somewhat of the 
nature of inspiration; but he seems never to have possessed 
a docile and obedient heart. 

Still less do we discover any evidence of true piety in the 
life of Judas, or in the language which either Christ or the 
evangelists use respecting him.— (See John vi. 64, 70; xii. 
6; xili. 18, 19; xvii. 12; xvili.9). It is not, indeed, easy to 
account for his being one of the twelve by the free choice 
of Christ, if he was evil from the first; but this hypothesis 
agrees better than any other with the narrative of John. 

Nor is there any decisive proof that Hymenzus and Alex- 
ander were, on the one hand, ever true Christians; or, on the 
other, finally lost. Both of them were delivered to Satan in 
order that they might be taught, by chastisement, not to blas- 
pheme (1 Tim. i. 20). This language suggests Paul’s hope of 
their recovery. Whether the Alexander mentioned in 2 Tim. 
v. 14, was the same as the one named in 1 Tim. i. 20, is quite 
uncertain, since the name was a common one among the 
Greeks; and, if not, there is no evidence of his being a 
Christian, even by profession. 

But the weight of scriptural evidence for the preservation 
and sanctification of all true believers depends very much 
upon the view which is taken of God’s relation to the work. 
If it be true that some are chosen to eternal life, and that 


1See Edwards (J.) “ Works,” I. p. 125. 


298 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


they are the same as those who are regenerated by the Spirit | 
of God, it follows that they will be kept by the power of God 
through faith unto salvation; but the clause, “ through faith,” 
should never be overlooked. The Scriptures furnish no evi- 
dence for the opinion that men will be either sanctified or 
saved, without faith in Christ. If they are kept, they are 
kept by keeping alive their faith. 

It is doubtless conceivable that God has elected some of 
our race to a temporary faith,—to a state of grace from 
which they are to fall away and perish; but the Scriptures do 
not, on the whole, present this view of election. Thus, in 2 
Thess. ii. 13, 14, the apostle writes as follows: “But we are 
bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, be- 
loved of the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you 
to salvation, in sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the 
truth; whereunto he called you by our gospel to the obtain- 
ing of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” And this is not 
the doctrine of Paul only; Peter expresses the same belief (1 
Pet. i. 3-5), — “ Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, who according to his abundant mercy begot us 
again unto a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus 
Christ from the dead; unto an inheritance imperishable and 
undefiled and unfading, reserved in heaven for you, who, by 
the power of God are kept through faith, unto a salvation 
ready to be revealed in the last time.” . 

In both these passages the end is salvation; and the means 
a vital union with Christ, established and maintained by the 
purpose and grace of God. In both, it is most natural to sup- 
pose that the writers considered all true believers as certain 
of being led by the grace of God, freely given and heartily 
received, to persevere unto the end. Says Turretin, “Faith 
is nct true because it perseveres; but it perseveres because 
it is true.” It would be still better to say, that it perseveres 
because the Saviour, by his Spirit and his truth, keeps it 
alive in the heart which. he has renewed ; but there is no sal- 
vation for men who do not abide in Christ. The purpose of 
God comprehends the means as well as the end. If the 


’ The Doctrine-of Salvation. «- 299 


means fail, the end will fail (cf. John xv. 6; Matt. xxiv. 13; 
Heb. vi. 9, 11, 12; Rom. vili. 29 sq.). 

But if the means fail, if faith and love are utterly wanting, 
if the soul that supposed itself united with Christ finds that it 
has no allegiance to‘him, or trust in him, what is the infer- 
ence to be drawn from its state? John appears to have fur- 
nished a satisfactory answer to this question in his first 
Epistle, — “They went out from us, but they were not of us; 
for, if they had bcen of us, they would have continued with 
us” (ii. 19). Very many passages of the New Testament are 
addressed to bodies of Christians as if they were, all of them, 
what they profess to be, and, therefore, as if any defection 
among them would bea defection of true believers ; but, in 
this instance, John appears to have given the key to such 
passages. 

It may be added, that Christ, as mediator, has received 

power to keep his own, and sanctify them (see John vi. 39, 
40; X. 27—29; xvii. 2), and that it agrees with our idea of 
the divine mind, that he should complete the work. of their 
redemption which was begun by the. new birth. Paul seems 
to have had this thought when he wrote to the Philippians, 
“ Being confident of this very thing, that He which began a 
good work in you will perfect it up to the day of Jesus 
Christ.” . 
. The doctrine of the perseverance, or the preservation of 
the saints, is, like the doctrine of election, very easily per- 
verted ; but, rightly understood, it. may be a source of great 
comfort and power, — an incentive to gratitude, a motive to, 
self-sacrifice, and a pillar of fire in the hour of danger. 


> 


300 Manual of Systematic Theology, 


PART SIXTH. 


CHRISTIAN CHURCHES AND ORDINANCES, 


In considering the “means of sanctification,” reference was 
made to “church-life” ; but no account was given of the con- 
stitution, the government, the work, the officers, and the ordi- 
nances implied in the use of the word Church, as interpreted 
by the New Testament.! 

To these, attention must now be given; for it is manifest 
that the functions of a Christian Church are not exhausted in 
seeking to further the sanctification of its own members; it 
is an aggressive as well as a conservative organization; it 
is to be employed in preserving the truth and edifying the 
saints, but also in diffusing the truth and subduing the world 
to Christ. In view of its two-fold office, we assign it a sepa- 
rate place in this treatise. 


I. CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 


In regard to the constitution, government, and work of a 
Christian Church, the following statements may be made: — 
1. That the apostles, either by word or action, have deter- 
mined what ought to be the polity of Christian churches to the 


1Dagg (J. L.) “Church Order”; Ripley (H. J.) “Church Polity”; Reynolds 
(J. L.) “Church Polity”; Dexter (H. M.) “‘Congregationalism: What is it? 
Whence is it? How does it work?” Punchard (G.) “ History of Congregation- 
alism”; Litton (E. A.) “The Church of Christ”; Jacob (G. A.) “The Ecel. 
Polity of the New Testament”; Whately (R.) “The Kingdom of Christ”; 
King (P.) “An Inquiry into the Constitution, Discipline, Unity, and Worship of 
the Primitive Churches”; Davidson (S.) ‘‘ The Eccl. Polity of the New Testa- 
ment Unfolded”; “Ecclesia,” “First Series,” “Second Series”; Cunningham 
(W.) “Discussions on Church Principles”; Smith (T.) “ Presbyterianism, not 
Prelacy, the Scriptural and Primitive Polity”; Lindsay (A. L.) “Ccumenicity 
in Relation to the Church of England”; Stevens (A.) “ An Essay on Church 
Polity”; Hooker (R.) “Laws of Eccl. Polity”; Rothe (R.) “Die Anfange der 
Christlichen Kirche”; Ritschl (A.) “Die Entstehung der altkatholischen 
Kirche.” 


Christian Churches and Ordinances. 301 


end of time. (a) i Cor. xiv. 33, 40; xii. 12 sq. (cf. vii. 15). 
(6) 1 Cor. iv. 17; vii. 17; xi. 16, 34. (c) Acts xiv. 23; Titus, i. 5 
(cf. Acts xx. 17; Phil. i. 1, &c.). (@) Heb. xiii. 7, 17; Acts xx. 
23-1 Peter v. 1-4; Titus ii: 15. (¢) y Cor. ix. 14 (cf. wv. 
wear); Gal. vi. 6; 1 Tim: v. 17, 18. (f) r Cor. v. t= 13; 
2 Thess. iii. 6 (cf. Matt. xviii. 15 sq.; 1 Tim. iii. 15). (g¢) 
1 Cor. xvi. 1, 2; xiv. 34-36 (cf. 1 Tim. ii. 12). (%) Acts xiv. 
ZO. 28 > XV. 2, 3. 

These passages show (a) that, in the apostle’s view, order 
should reign in the churches of Christ, every member filling 
his own place and doing his own work; (4) that essentially 
the same principles and practices were taught by Paul in all 
the churches under his care, the practices resting upon the 
principles; (c) that he was wont to organize churches, and 
appoint elders or pastors over them, wherever there was a 
group of converts; (d@) that these elders had everywhere 
substantially the same rank and work in the churches, and 
were to be treated accordingly; (e) that they were, as a rule, 
entitled to a reasonable support from those for whom they 
labored, if they gave their whole time to the work; and 
(f) that the churches, as such, were charged with the duty of 
maintaining Christian doctrine and discipline. These various 
items fully justify our statement, unless it can be proved that 
the church arrangements of the apostolic age were tempo- 
rary; and, if that can be shown, it will, of course, be impos- 
sible to prove that Christians are under obligation to form 
themselves into societies at all. But evidently the presump- 
tion is altogether in favor of our statement ; and it belongs to 
those who deny the permanency of church-life and order to 
show cause for their denial. 

2. That the word “polity” ts used by us in the sense of con- 
stitution and government; while the word “church” is used to 
denote a society of baptized believers, maintaining together the 
worship and ordinances of Christ, according to his revealed 
will. For this use of the word church, see Matt. xviii. 17; 
PACIS Ne 1 5 Wl. es xt BP 26> it, ¥,.5 5 xu P> Kv. 23, 27; 
XV. 3, 4,.22, 41; xvi. 5; xviii. 22; xx. 17, 28; Rom. xvi. 1, 4, 


. 


302 - Manual of Systematic Theology. 


16, 23; 1 Cor. i.-2; iv. 17; -vi. 43 vilL“17; <\g2eueeeee 
22; Xiv. 4. 5, 12, 19, 23, 28, 33, 34, 353 xvi. I, 10, and other 
passages, about ninety times in the New Testament. 

The word ecclesza; is also used in the New Testament as 
‘denote (a) all the churches ina part-or the whole of the 
world, as being in some sense one. — See Acts ix. 31, though 
the singular is not-absolutely certain in this place; and 1 Tim. 
ili. 5, and 1 Cor. xii. 28, though the word may possibly refer in 
‘these places to a particular church, — indeed, we think it does . 
in the former; (0) all Christians in heaven and on earth. — 
See Eph. i. 22; iii. 10; v. 24, 25, 27, 29, 32; and (6) a public 
assembly, whether orderly or not, but, properly, one capable 
of civil action. — See Acts xix. 32, 39, 41. But these uses of 
the word are infrequent; and the New Testament gives us no 
reason to connect the word “polity” with the word “church”’ 
when employed in the senses markéd (a) and (0); while (6) is 
the original and secular meaning of the word, of no import- 
ance to us, except as accounting for its ordinary Christian 
use. Twice it is used with reference to the Jewish assembly 
or congregation (namely, Acts vil. 38; Hebrew ii. 12). 

3. Lhe primary relation of the members of a Christian 
church to one another ts that of equality and fraternity. They 
are all brethren; all entitled to the same privileges, all kings 
and priests unto God. Matt. xxiii. 8; Acts vi. 3; 1 Cor. viii. 
12; Gal.iii. 26 sq.; iv. 7 (cfi..1 Cor. xii. 12: sq. ; (Galatia 
;Eph. ii, 18-sq.; Heb. iii.-6; :1 Tim. vi. 2; 1 Peteraimgs Rev. 
iv6e 1 Retersv. 3.) 

Hence, social and civil distinctions do not affect one’s posi- 
.tion in the church. .A,son-may be the spiritual teacher and 
overseer of his father, or a servant of his master. Hence, 
too, in the church, men do not claim office asa right, but are 
put in office by the act of their brethren. Fitness for official 
-service is the only good reason for appointment to it. 

4. Ju the last instance, tt belongs to every church as ame 
and not to its officers, to exclude and receive members; the 
right to exclude presupposing the right to receive (Rom. Xiv. 
1; Matt. xviii. 17; 1 Cor. v.13; 2 Thess. iii. 6, 14 (cf. Titus 
iii, 10, 11); and see also Acts i. 23; vi. 3, 4, 5; XV. 2.) 


‘ 


Christian Churches and Ordinances. 303 


The members of a church cannot transfer their authority 
to others, for it is intrusted to them; and the use of it is a 
duty no less than a right. They may perhaps do a particular 


act, agreed upon, through representatives; but there is no 
‘Scriptural ground for more than this. The so-called council 
at Jerusalem may be thought to furnish an example of sub- 


mitting a particular point to others for final decision; but 
neither that nor the nature of the case warrants a general 


transfer of rights and duties to any other body. For, in the 


first place, there is no valid reason to suppose that the church 


‘polity sanctioned by the apostles is not adapted to all times 


and peoples, since true religion fits men for responsibility : 
and, in the second place, such a transfer, once made, cannot 
easily be revoked; and, therefore, by making it, the members 
of a church interfere, more or less, with the rights and duties 


of their successors. 


Whether all who belong to a church, or only the brethren, 
should act in receiving and excluding members is somewhat 
doubtful; see 1 Tim. ii. 12; but, in a majority of Baptist 
churches, all- are expected to act, if they see fit to do so. 
The voice of a majority is binding on the whole body. — 
(See 2 Cor. it. 6.) 

5. The members of a Christian church ought to receive into 
the same those, and those only, who are baptized on a credible 
profession of their faith, and who have reasonably correct 


‘wiews of Christian doctrine. Matt x. 32, 37, 38; xxviii. 19 
fem 1o)- John. 55 iv.-1; Acts i, 415 vill. 12,°133°x 


(Eun. %. 10; 20 (cf. 1 Cor. v. 5, 13; Tittis-iii.. to). 

As the essential prerequisites for admission to a Christian 
church are given in the New Testament, no church can 
rightfully welcome to its fellowship persons who are not 
believed to have those prerequisites; nor is any church at 
liberty to insist on qualifications’ other than those virtually 
prescribed by the New Testament. 

We say “viitually prescribed” ; and we think the last qual- 
ification named above, to wit, “reasonably correct views of 
Christian doctrine,” to be in this way prescribed ; for it is im- 


304 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


plied in the law of discipline for heretics and errorists. A 
man who will probably sow error'in the church that receives 
him ought not to be received; for the law of self-preserva- 
tion and efficiency forbids it. But regard must be had to the 
age and circumstances of a candidate, in deciding whether he 
has “reasonably correct views of doctrine.” 

It may properly be added, that persons should be received 
to baptism and church-membership as soon as they give to 
the members of the church satisfactory evidence of their 
faith and desire to obey the Saviour’s commands, 

6. The members of a Christian church are responsible for 
the proper discipline of offenders belonging to the body. This 
appears from (a) Matt. xviii. 15-17; Matt. v. 23, 24. (6) 
1 Cor. v. 1-13. (¢)1 Tim. i. 19, 20 (ch 2 Tite 
(dZ) Titus tii. 10. (e) 2. Thess. iii. 6 (ch. 1 Timpapeeeeaieeee 
Tim, v. 19. 

It is evident, therefore, that there are at least five kinds of 
offences, for any one of which a person ought to be excluded 
from the church; namely, (a2) wrong-doing to a brother in the 
church, for which satisfaction is refused; (4) gross immorality 
of any kind; (c) inculcating religious error; (¢) creating divis- 
ion in the church ; (¢) idleness, meddlesomeness, or disregard 
of manifest family obligations. . 

In case of flagrant immorality or crime, the offender ought 
to be promptly excluded, without waiting to see whether he 
repents or not; but, if he then gives convincing proof of re- 
pentance, he may in due time be restored. 

No charge against an elder or pastor of a church shawdd 
be received, unless it is sustained by two or three witnesses, — 
a rule which seems to presuppose eminent integrity and self- 
control in such an officer, making it particularly improbable 
that he will commit an offence worthy of discipline. 

In case of special doubt or difficulty, it is sometimes wise 
for a church to seek the advice of judicious brethren from 
without, or of a council of delegates from other churches, be- 
fore giving its final judgment. 

All the important business of a church ought to be tranis- 


Christian Churches and Ordinances. 305 


acted at meetings properly notified as business meetings, so 
that all members who desire to do so may be present, and 
share in its action. 

7. It belongs to a Christian church to select for official ser- 
vice such of tts members as it deems qualified for the same. 
eueusa 21 'sq.; vi. 3 (cf. xiii. 2. 3; xiv. 26, 27; xv. 2). 

The action of the church under the direction of the apos- 
tles, before the day of Pentecost, cannot be rclicd upon as 
certainly expressing the mind of Christ; yet the presumption 
that it did so in the instance cited is very strong; for we find 
the apostles, after the Pentecost, directing the church to re 
peat its action in the choice of another grade of officers. 
These two cases evidently establish a precedent, and reveal a 
principle ; and we find nothing inconsistent with this precedent 
and principle in the later teaching cf the apostles. We have, 
I think, a right to presume that the churches were always 
called to choose their pastors and deacons, though the formal 
act of consecration was performed by apostles or elders. 

8. As a rule, churches ought to respect the action of one 
another; for, though organically separate, they are under the 
same law, animated by the same spirit, secking the same end, 
and intrusted with equal authority. 

Hence the ordination of a minister by one church may be 
properly accepted by others as valid; yet this act is of such 
a nature as to render the advice of a council of delegates from 
several churches very desirable, if not imperative. Should 
the council deem the candidate presented unworthy of ordi- 
nation, and thus disagree with the church calling it, the latter 
may have power to go on and ordain the man: but it is rarely 
or never wise to do so; and the man thus ordained would have 
no claim to be recognized by other churches as a competent 
and trustworthy minister. 

Hence, too, the discipline of one church should be treated 
as valid and just by other churches. Exceptions to this rule 
must be of very rare occurrence; for the relation of churches 


1Compare Clemens Romanus; 1 Fp. ad Corinthios, c. 44, cvveidoxycdans TH¢ 
éxkAyjolag ~aenC. 


306 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


to one another is fraternal; and a spirit of mutual confidence 
ought to be cherished. 

This is what churches ought to be and to do, according to 
the apostolic teaching; but, if any so-called churches differ 
essentially in doctrine or in polity from the New Testament 
standard, their action need not, and oftentimes should not, be 
considered as valid. 

9. Without risk to self-control or separate responsibility to 
Christ, churches may combine their resources and influence ur 
the furtherance of religious or benevolent enterprises (Acts xi. 
20, 30; Gal. 1, 10), 2'Cor--villandiixy: 

It is evident from these passages that, under the direction 
of Paul, a systematic and united effort was made by the 
churches of Macedonia and Achaia to assist, by a large con- 
tribution of money, their poor brethren in Judea. It also ap- 
pears that a well-known and trusted brother was associated 
by the churches with Paul for transmitting this contribution. 
But it does not appear that any ecclesiastical body, superior 
to the churches, was called into existence, or was engaged in 
this work. By what method the churches appointed the 
brother referred to, we are not informed. One church may 
have chosen him, and the other churches may have been asked 
to concur in the choice; or the several churches may have 
made the election by delegates empowered to act for them. 
It is plain, however, as before stated, that delegates can only 
act for churches in the particular matter intrusted to them. 
If they do more than this, their action can be only advisory, 
binding themselves, perhaps, but not the churches. , 

But the members of a Christian church, fully organized for 
growth and service, may be divided into three classes, laical, 
- diaconal, and clerical; and a few words must be said as to 
the particular functions of each. 

10. Zhe lay members of a church are required to pay suita- 
ble deference to their officers, and, along with the deacons, to see 
that their pastors have reasonable compensation for their official 
work. (Heb. xiii. 7, 17; Gal. vi.6; 1 Tim..v. 17; 16, 
ix, 14 (cf. vv. 7-11). 


Christian Churches and Ordinances. a SOF 


' Of course they are to share in all the work of the church, 
previously described, every one endeavoring to serve the 
body according to his special ability (1 Cor. xii. 12 sq.; 
Rom. xii. 4 sq.). The decision as to what is reasonable pay 
for the official work done by a pastor must be left to the 
judgment of the whole church. But if any layman of means 
differ from the church, thinking the pastors ought to be paid 
more than is judged to be a reasonable compensation by the 
body, he is not to be blamed for making up what he con- 
siders the deficiency. It is doubtful whether a church has a 
right to fix the sum which each one of its members shall pay 
in support of public worship, and, in case of refusal, to deal 
' with the delinquent by way of discipline. Nor is it certain 
that every member of a church ought to pay for the support 
of preaching in proportion to his income. Yet the salary of 
a pastor, though raised by voluntary contributions, is not a 
gift to him, nor alms from the church. 

11. The deacons of achurch ought to assist the pastor in 
the subordinate duties of his office, especially in caring for the 
sick and the poor (Acts vi. 1 sq.; Rom. xii. 7; xvi. I, 2; 1 
fGen xu 23; Phil. i;1; 1 Tim. iii. 8— 12). 

It is sometimes thought that deacons, by virtue of their 
office, have charge of all the finances of the church; but 
there is no adequate proof of this. A church may select for 
its treasurer one who is not a deacon, or may appoint a finan- 
cial committee to look after pecuniary matters. The duties cf 
a deacon are of a semi-spiritual character, and are determined 
by the amount of help which the pastor needs. In small 
churches, having pastors, there may be no occasion, for a 
time, for the service of deacons; yet it may be wise, even in 
such cases, to have at least one, who can take the lead): 
should the office of pastor become vacant. 

Ee the statement of Justin Martyr, in his “ First Apol- 
ogy,” it is almost certain that deacons distributed the bread 
and wine at the Lord’s Supper; but the New Testament 
does not allude to this as one of their functions. 

Deacons should be selected for office by the church of 


308 Manual of Systematic Theology, 


which they are members, and which they are to serve; ahd 
should be set apart to their work by prayer and laying on 
of hands, the pastor or bishop naturally leading in the con- 
secration. 

12. The pastors of Christian churches are to watch over tie 
churches which they serve, instruct them in the gospel, rebuke 
false teachers, and refute their errors, insist upon suitable 
discipline; and, in a word, be leaders, teachers, and examples 
to the flock in all spiritual things (Acts xx. 17, 28; Eph. iv. 
11,12; Phil. i 1; 1 Tim. iii, 1-7; v. 1, 17; Titus i. 5-9; 
Heb. xiii. 7,17; 1 Peter v. 1-4; 1 Tim. iv. 11-14; 2 Tim, 
n., 2). 

For the use of the word pastors, see Eph. iv. 11 (and cf. 
John xxi. 16; Acts xx. 28; 1 Peter v. 2; Matt. xxvi. 31; John 

x. 11 sq.; Heb. xiii. 20; 1 Peter ii. 25). For the use of the 
word ¢cachers, see Eph. iv. 11 (cf. Acts xiii. 1; 1 Cor. xii. 28, 
29; I Tim. ii. 7; 2 Tim: i. 11; ®¥. 3; Heb. vo 0250 fae 
1; 1 Tim. iii. 2). For the word Jdzshops, see Acts xx. 28; 
Phil; i. 14 1 Tim. iii. 2; Titus 1. 7 (ch 1 Peter fae 
xii. 15; 1 Peter v. 2). -For eddérs, see Acts x1, 90, eee 
XV. 2, 4, 6, 22, 23; XV. 4; Xx. 17; xxi. 18; 1) Tie 
v. 17,19; Titus i.5; James v. 14; 1 Peter v. 1; 2 Gna, 
3 Johni. For presidents or leaders, see 1 Thess. v. 12; 1 
Tim. iii. 11 (cf. Rom. xii. 8); Heb. xiii. 7, 17, 24 (cf. Matt. ii. 
6; Luke xxii. 26; Acts xv. 22). 


¥Miiller (J.) “Von der géttlichen Einsetzung des geistlichen Amtes,” Abhand- 
lungen, pp. 468 - 657 ; Nitzsch (C. I.) “ Praktische Theologie”; Hoppin (J. M.) 
“The Office and Work of the Christian Ministry”; Vinet (A.) “ Pastoral The- 
ology”; Ripley (H. J.) “Sacred Rhetoric” ; Wayland (F.) “The Ministry of 
the Gaepel ”; Cannon (J. S.) “Lectures on Pastoral Theology”; Beecher 
{H. W.) “Yale Lectures on Preaching”; Hall (J.) ‘““God’s Word through 
Preaching ”’; Storrs (H. R.) “‘ Preaching without Notes”; Taylor (W. M.) “The 
Ministry of the Word”; Blaikie (W. G.)‘‘ The Work of the Ministry”; Porter (N.) 
Lectures on Homiletics and Preaching”; Broadus (J. A.) “‘ Preparation and 
Delivery of Sermons,” and “History of Preaching”; Vinet (A.) “ Histoire de la 
Prédication” ; Ehrenfeuchter (F.) “Die Praktische Theologie,” &c.; Zincke 
(F. B.) ‘“‘The Duty and Discipline of Extemporary Preaching”; Mcllvaine 
{J. H.) “Elocution: the Sources and Elements of its Power”; Day (H. N.) 
“The Art of Discourse.” 


Christian Churches and Ordinances. 309 


That the words, “elder” and “overseer,” or “ bishop,” refer 
to the same officer in a church is evident (a) from their being 
used interchangeably ; (4) from the identity of qualifications 
required of them; (c) from the way in which overseers and 
deacons are named together,—as if they were the only 
officers of a church.! 

Against this it is urged (1) that Titus had Episcopal 
authority in Crete (Titus i. 5); but there is no sufficient evi- 
dence of this. The brief direction of Paul is fairly accounted 
for, by assuming that Titus was an evangelist, commissioned 
to effect a further organization of the churches by the action, 
or with the co-operation of the same. It is safe to presume 
that he performed a definite service in the usual way, but 
with Paul’s authority. 

(2.) That the “angels of the seven churches,” addressed by 
John, were bishops or overseers, holding an office superior to 
that of “elders.” There is, however, much doubt in the 
minds of good interpreters as to the significance of the word, 
“angels,” in the passages referred to; and there is little or no 
evidence for the assertion, that they were diocesan bishops, 

Again, it appears that many churches had more elders than 
one ; and this may have been the case with all. — (See Acts 
mgOG nil! i. 1; Acts xiv. 23; Titus i.s). Yet the use of 
the singular number in 1 Tim. iii. 2, and Titus i. 7, compared 
with 1 Tim. iii. 8, 11, 12, has suggested the idea, that there 
was but one pastor in some of the churches. In most of the 
larger cities, there were doubtless several small congrega- 
tions, as well as several pastors. 

It will also be observed (1) that bishops were overseers 7 
the Church, and not lords over it; (2) that, in distinction from 
deacons, they must be “apt to teach”; and (3) that they 
were to look after the spiritual interests of the Church by 
preaching, as their principal work. 


1 Winer, Neander, De Wette, Meyer, Huther, Wiesinger, Bickell, Rothe, 
Jacobson, Alford, Ellicott, Conybeare; see especially Mellor (E.) “ Priesthood 
in the Light of the New Testament,” —a very spirited and able work. Hackett 
and others agree on this point. 


310 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


There is scarcely sufficient ground for the opinion that 
elders were of two classes, —teaching and ruling; but this 
may have been the case. The only passage which obviously 
suggests this view is 1 Tim. v. 17,— “Let the elders that 
preside well be counted worthy of double honor, especially 
those who labor in word and teaching.” But the word trans- 
lated “labor” means literally, “to work hard,’ — “ to weary 
or beat out one’s self by labor”’ ; and the apostle may intend to 
say that such as give themselves wholly and exhaustively to 
the ministry of the word deserve more respect and compen- 
sation than others. This is the view of Mosheim; and it 
appears to be very reasonable. - But Dr. Ripley thinks the 
word, “elders,” here includes deacons; and his judgment 
always deserves consideration. 

The authority of pastors is moral,—depending on their 
character, their call from God, their Christian knowledge, 
and their position as religious teachers. They will be likely, 
in ordinary circumstances, to have all the respect and confi- 
dence which they deserve. They will mould their people, — 
“ Like priest, like people.” Probably ministers do not have 
as much control over their people as the New Testament 
authorizes them to have; but it is because they are not suf- 
ficiently wise and godly to win it. 

_ Pastors should be selected by the whole church which they 
are to serve.; but, in the first instance, they should be set 
apart to their work by the aid and approval of a council of 
elders and laymen from other churches. The service of ordi- 
nation should include prayer, and the laying on of hands by 
the eldership (1 Tim. iv. 14). But, as we understand the 
matter, the vote of a properly organized council, recognizing 
one as called of God to the ministry, and deciding to set 
him apart to that work, is the essential act in ordination. 
All that follows is but a fitting announcement of this act, 
(1) by the imposition of hands, publicly; and (2) by solemn 
prayer to God for his blessing on the person ordained. It is 
this vote of a council (or wf a church) which, under God, 
authorizes a given person to administer the ordinances, and 


fens 


Christian Churches and Ordinances. 311 


to perform all the duties assigned to the ministry in well- 
ordered churches. Churches and councils should beware of 
acting hastily or under pressure in ordaining persons to the 
ministry (1 Tim. v. 22). All the preliminary steps should be 
taken prayerfully and deliberately by the church. 

It may also be remarked, that, while ordination does nov 
impart any official gift or grace to him who receives it, it does 
promote order and efficiency in the churches; jivst, by keep- 
ing out of the ministry not a few persons who are unqualified 
for it; and secondly, by giving moral countenance and support 
to suitable men in and after entering it. Thus the churches 
are able to protect themselves, in a measure, against fluent 
and plausible men who do not hold the truth, and to secure a 
better class of “ pastors and teachers” than they would other- 
wise have. 

But should ministers of other evangelical denominations be 
ordained, if they would become Baptist ministers? In many 
instances this appears to be scarcely necessary; for they are 
already well-known and approved, needing no recommenda- 
tion to Baptist churches, save this: that they fully accept our 
views of the doctrines and ordinances of Christ. A council 
for examination and recognition would, therefore, be as suit- 
able as one for ordination ; yet there would be no sacrilege in 
the latter. For ordination confers no indelible character or 
permanent grace; and, if circumstances require this, may 
be repeated a dozen times without harm, —as often, indeed, 
as the pastor is placed over a new church. But ordinarily 
there seems to be no sufficient reason for such a course, or 
for re-ordaining a Pedobaptist minister who becomes a Bap- 
tist ; for, setting aside the figment of sacramental grace, ordi- 
nation and recognition are virtually the same, with this 
difference only: that the latter treats the candidate as one 
who has been acting as a minister before, though not in fel- 
lowship with those now receiving him. The essential point 
in such a case is that the council, after suitable examination, 
recognize by vote the person in question as qualified to do all 
the work of a regular Baptist minister, and as worthy of the 


312 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


confidence of Baptist churches in doing the duties of the 
ministry. 

It is often the duty of pastors and churches to take the 
initiative in directing the minds of suitable men to the work 
of the ministry. Females are not eligible to the office of pas- 
tor or evangelist; but they may be made deaconesses, though 
not as substitutes for men. Rom. xvi. 1; 1 Tim. iii, 11 (cf 
V. 3, 9). 

13. Lvangelists are simply preachers of the gospel, or min- 
isters who have no pastoral charge (Acts xxi. 8 (cf. viii. 40) ; 
Eph. iv. 11; 2 Tim. iv. 5). Many missionaries are strictly 
evangelists. As to the wisdom of setting apart a class of 
ministers for irregular, itinerant preaching, in a region where 
pastors and churches abound, there will be honest differences 
of opinion ; but, in those parts of a country where there are but 
few churches supplied with pastors, evangelists are necessary. 

14. The apostles and prophets of the first age have had no 
successors thus far; and there is no promise of them for the 
future. Their work could be done once for all. But,they 
still speak to us by the Scriptures ; and their position, com- 
mission, and illumination were such that all Christians should 
obey their word. 

II, CHRISTIAN ORDINANCES. 


There are but two ordinances or sacred rites enjoined upon 
Christians by the New Testament ; namely, Baptism and the 
Lord’s Supper. Both are emblematic of central facts in the 
Christian religion; and together they teach in a very impres- 
sive manner the vital doctrines of the gospel. It is therefore 
important to understand their meaning and use, to guard 
against their misinterpretation, and to keep them as they 
were delivered by Christ to his apostles, and by the apostles 
to the primitive Christians. 


I. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 


We propose to consider the external rite, the significance 
of the rite, the subjects of the rite, and the relation of the 
rite to John’s baptism. 


Christian Churches and Ordinances. 313 


1. Zhe External Rite. 


Aside from the words employed, the external rite of baptism 
consists in an immersion of the candidate in water, unto or 
into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 


Spirit. 


That the rite includes an immersion of the subject in water 
is learned, — 

(a) From the meaning and use of the word Gantito, which 
was employed by Christ himself and the inspired apostles to 
denote the rite. Strenuous and learned efforts have been 
made to show that the word in question does not point to 
immersion as the primitive rite; but these efforts are unavail- 
ing. The proper meaning of the word —a meaning which it 
has always retained in the Greek language, and a meaning 
which it always has, unless the circumstances of the case 
point to a tropical use—is immerse. The figurative applica- 
tions of the word may all be traced back to this, as the literal 
and radical sense expressed by the verb. To this view the 
best lexicographers assent.’ 

(6) From the use of iovw, and, perhaps, ovieov with reference 
to baptism. Acts xxii. 16 (cf. 1 Cor. vi. 11; Titus iii. 5; Eph. 
meee JOHN xi. 30; Acts ix. 37; xvi. 33; Heb. x 22; 2 Peter 
ii. 22). On the first of these passages, Dr. Hackett remarks: 
“The sort of outward washing expressed by this verb has 
been noticed on xvi. 33. Hence, there can be no question as 
to the mode of Laptism in this instance; for if it be main- 
tained that Samzom is uncertain in its meaning, a definition is 
added in é6lovow, which removes the doubt.” His note on 
the simple word in xvi. 33, is this: “This verb,’ says Dr. 


1Sophocles (E. A.) “Greek Lexicon of the Later and Byzantine Periods,” 
s. v-; he remarks: “There is no evidence that Luke and Paul and the other 
writers of the New Testament put upon this verb meanings not recognized by 
the Greeks”; Liddell and Scott, “ Greek-English Lexicon, based on the German 
work of F. Passow,” s. v.; Pape (W.) “Handworterbuch der Griechischen 
Sprache,” s. v.; Robinson (E.) “Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testa. 
ment,” s. v.; Grimm (C. L. W.) “Lexicon Grzco-Latinum in Libros Novi Testa- 
menti,” s. v.; “Stephani Thesaurus Grece Linguz,” tertia editio, and other 
works. 


314 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


Robinscn (Lex. N. T. s. v.), “signifies to wash the entire body, 
not merely a part of it, like »izzw.” Trench says: “viar and 
viwacodue almost always express the washing of @ part of the 
body ...; while 2ovw, which is not so much ‘to wash’ as ‘to 
bathe,’ and dovc0au, or in common Greek, Aovecda, ‘to bathe 
one’s self,’ imply always, not the bathing of a part of the 
body, but of the whole.” The other passages cited merit 
careful attention, as confirming this account of the word. 
Baptism is a bathing. 

(c) From the ctrcwmstances mentioned by New Testament 
writers i connection with baptism (Mark i. 9; John ili. 23; 
Acts viii. 38, 39). It is sometimes said that the reason for re- 
sorting to places where there was much water was this, that 
the people and their animals might be supplied with a very 
necessary means of refreshment and cleanliness. But this 
reason is nowhere suggested by the sacred writers; and it 
has never been shown that there was any such lack of water 
in Palestine, at that time, that a multitude, even an army, 
could not subsist comfortably in any of the larger towns, 
Besides the natural sequence of thought in John iii. 23, makes 
it almost certain that the abundant waters of Enon’ were con- 
venient for administering the rite of baptism, and that the 
place was chosen on that account. “But John also was bap- 
tizing””—not holding great meetings, and preaching, but— 
“baptizing in Enon, near to Salim, because there was much 
water there: and they came, and were baptized.” — (Alford’s 
Trans.) ’ 

(2) From references to the ritual act, in stating its import 
(Rom. vi. 3-5; Col. ii. 12). Says Lightfoot on Col. ii. 12: 
“Baptism is the grave of the old man, and the birth of the 
new. As he sinks beneath the baptismal waters, the believer 
buries there all his corrupt affections and past sins; as he 
emerges thence, he rises regenerate, quickened to new hopes 
and a new life... .. Thus baptism is an image of his participa 
tion, both in the death and in the resurrection of Christ. — (See 


1See G. W. Samson, “ The Sufficiency of Water for Baptizing at Jerusalem, 
and elsewhere in Palestine,” in “The Design of Baptism,” &c., esp. p. 136 sq. 


Christian Churches and Ordinances. 315 


Apost. Const. III. 17).— Lhe tmmersion ts the dying with him; 
the emersion ts the rising with him. For this twofold image, 
as it presents itsclf to St. Paul, see especially Rom. vi. 3 sq.” 
And this is but a sample of the concessions made by those 
who do not insist on immersion. A very large number ot 
scholars, belonging to churches that do not practise immer-. 
sion might be quoted in support of the view, that the passages 
cited above presuppose immersion as the customary rite in 
the apostolic age. 

But, if it was the customary rite;what evidence is there that 
it was not the uniform rite? This evidence ought to be very 
clear, to be of any avail against the presumption in favor of a 
ritual act that was always the same, and sure to speak the 
same language. Dut, instead of being clear and stringent, it 
is inferential and weak. 

(ce) From the practice of “ the early churches,’ — meaning by 
this expression, the churches of the second century and the 
beginning of the third. This practice was evidently immer- 
sion ; and it furnishes a presumption of more or less force in 
favor of immersion as the apostolic rite. No one ought to 
rely upon it with entire confidence; for it may have been one 
of the earliest errors that crept into the churches, as Coleman 
suggests; but it is not antecedently very probable that error 
would first enter at this door, since the Greek language was 
largely used in the West as well as in the East. 

Pouring was indeed allowed in case of sickness; and Cyprian 
defends it on the plea of necessity. God will accept compendia, 
when the full service is impossible. But on whose authority 
does he say this? In such case, compendia are dispendia. 

(f) From the practice of the Greck Church down to the 
present time. In proof of this statement, appeal may be 
made to many high authorities (for example, to Alexander 
de Stourdza, Russian State Councillor, and member of the 
Greek Church; to Dean .Stanléy, the historian of the Greek 
Church; and to Dr. Arnold, for many years a missionary in 
Greece). There may have been instances in which a priest 
has forborne to immerse an infant; but these instances must 


316 Manual of Systematic T heology. 


have been extremely rare. The almost if not quite uniform 
practice of.the Greek Church is immersion; and I do not think 
any native Greek would admit that Baarif» means either to 
sprinkle or to pour. 

(g) From the concessions of those who practice affusion or 
sprinkling. Among these may be named A. P. Stanley, G. F 
Howson, F. W. Robertson, J. B. Mozley, Thomas Chalmers, 
E. Pressens¢é, Edw. Reuss, Daniel Schenkel, H. A. W. 
Meyer, W. M. L. De Wette, A. Tholuck, L. J. Riickert, A. 
Neander, H. Olshausen, F. Bleek, H. Alford, C. J. Ellicott, 
J. P. Lange, J. B. Lightfoot, J. H. A, Ebrasdieieees 
Kahnis in his “ Die Lutherische Dogmatik historisch-gene- 
tisch dargestellt,” II. s. 310, ff. besonders s. 337, C. F. Keil.1 

It has been customary to mention also the use of the prep- 
ositions sig, év, and éx, in connection with going into the water, 
being baptized in the water, and coming out of the water, as 
confirmatory of the view that the sacred rite included an 
immersion of the candidate; and this, at least, may be said 
with confidence, that the use of these prepositions is precisely 
what might have been expected, if the rite was performed by 
immersion. Nor is the. circumstance that the element, 
water, is put several times in the dative without a preposi- 
tion, thus denoting the means, — if, indeed, this is the true 
explanation of the dative in every such case, — any reason for 
denying that the rite was performed by immersion; for bap- 
tism is wzth water, whether it is immersion, or pouring, or 


10Of Special examinations, the following may be mentioned: Stuart (M.) “Is 
the Manner of Christian Baptism prescribed in the New Testament?” Biblical 
Repository, Vol. III. p. 288 sq.; H6fling (W. F.) “Das Sacrament der Taufe”; 
Matthies (C. L.) “ Baptismatis Expositio, Biblica, Historica, Dogmatica”; Dale 
(J. W.) “Classic Baptism,” “Judaic Baptism,” “Christic and Patristic Bap- 
tism”; Ilutchings (S.) “The Mode of Baptism”; Ripley (H. J.) “ Reply to 
Stuart on Baptism”; Wiberg (A.) “ On Baptism” ; Chase (I,) ‘‘ The Design of 
Baptism,” &c.; Carson (A.) “On Baptism”; Conant (T. J.) “On the Meaning 
and Use of faxzifevv in Greek Authors”; Crystal (J.) “ A History of the Modes 
of Christian Baptism”; Dressler (E.) ‘Die Lehre von der Heiligen Taufe”; 
Ingham (R.) “ Handbook of Baptism,” Vol. I; Gotch (F. W.) “A Critical 
Examination of the Rendering of the word farrifa, in the Ancient, and cas of 
the Modern Versions of the N. T.” 


Christian Churches and Ordinances. 317 


sprinkling. Yet we do not see that much reliance can be 
placed on the argument drawn from the use of the preposi- 
tions named above; though whatever bearing they have on 
the question is in favor, rather than against, the Baptist view. 

But the following objections have been urged by Dr. Rob- 
inson against supposing that the word, Bemritm always retains 
its classical sense in the New Testament :— 

i. It is used in Luke xi. 38, to signify ablution, or affu- 
sion, as may be seen from Mark vii. 2, 4, 8 (cf. 2 Kings iii. 
11). But, in this view, he differs from the ablest critics of 
Germany. Indeed, the references of Dr. Robinson prove 
nothing; because the circumstances are not described as 
similar. Couches, as well as smaller articles, were naturally 
plunged in water to cleanse them. If they included a frame, 
it was doubtless separable into parts, which could easily 
be immersed; but Tischendorf omits “couches” in his last 
edition. 

2. He supposes that Acts ii. 41, and iv. 4, prove’ eight 
thousand persons to have been baptized in Jerusalem within a 
short period; and that there was not water enough in the city 
to immerse so many. We respond (a) That there were pools 
in and around the city, large enough to immerse almost any 
number of persons at a time; for Dr. Hackett, who was not 
given to exaggeration, and who had visited the city, remarks, 
“that the pools so numerous and large, which encircled 
Jerusalem ... . afforded ample means for the administra- 
tion of the rite”; and adds, that “ The habits of the East, as 
every traveller knows, would present no obstacle to such a 
‘use of the public reservoirs” ; (0) that a pool large enough 
for the immersion of one might serve for the immersion of 
five thousand in succession; (c) that five thousand, instead of 
eight thousand, was probably the number of believers in 
Jerusalem at the time referred to in Acts iv. 4; (d) that it is 
by no means certain that three thousand were baptized on 
the day of Pentecost; yet the apostles and their assistants 
could easily have baptized this number in a few hours. In: 


318 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


deed, immersion may be administered in a sen manner, 
as rapidly as sprinkling or pouring! 4 


3. Heurges that Banrite was transferred, and not trans- 


lated, in the early Latin version; hence it did not mean the 
same as zmmergo. 

Reply. This transferrence of the word can be readily 
explained without supposing any difference of meaning be- 
tween fanzitw and izmmergo,; for the Greek language was 
generally understood, and largely used during the first three 
centuries of the Christian era. Hence the word femzite first 
used to describe the act of Christian baptism, would natu- 
rally become well known; and, like the word edyagiotia, be 
retained, when other less important words were translated. 
But it must also be said that the earliest Latin version of the 
New Testament, of which we have any traces, was the one 
used by Tertullian in North Africa; and that in this version 
the Greek verb is translated by ¢tzzgo or zzmguo? Tertullian 
also used the nouns, ¢zzctzo and inxtinctio, to denote baptism. 
These words point to immersion as the ritual act, especially 
when compared with mergo, tmmergo, favo, and lavacrum, 
which he employs likewise; but they suggest, at the same 
time, the idea of some sacred and mystical energy, imparted 
to the baptismal waters by the presence of the Holy Spirit, — 
the incipient doctrine of baptismal regeneration.’ 

4. He says that certain baptismal fonts of an early date 
were too small for the immersion of adults, and must there- 
fore have been used for sprinkling or pouring. But it may 
be remarked, in reply, that the fonts examined by him were 
subsequently examined by Dr. Hackett, and pronounced large 
enough for the immersion of adults. Surely, then, they were 
absurdly large for any other mode of administering the rite in 


1“The Design of Baptism, with other Baptismal Tracts for the Times,” p- 
112 sq.; Barclay (J. T.) “The City of the Great King”; Robinson (E.) “ Bib- 
lical Researches in Palestine,” &c., I. p. 323 sq.; Williams (Geo.) “The Holy 
City.” 

2 See Ronsch (H.) “Das Neue Testament Tertullians.” 

8]It may be proper to remark, that the writer is not indebted to Dr. Dale tor 
this view, it being one that he has held and taught for many years. 


Christian Churches and Ordinances. 319 


question. Besides, it is difficult to fix the date of these 
fonts. More recently one has been brought to light in an- 
cient Tyre, having steps leading down into it at both ends, 
and being manifestly intended for the baptism of adults: it 
is a monolith, large enough within for the immersion of 
adults. The church in which it was found was built, we 
believe, in the fourth century. 

Others add to these objections, the plea that the baptism 
of the Holy Spirit was conceived of and represented as an 
effusion ; and therefore baptism with water must have been 
performed by affusion. This argument has been put in the 
forefront of the controversy by some Pedobaptist writers. 
But it seems to us destitute of any force; for it cannot be 
denied, that the same operation of an invisible and spiritual 
agent may'be represented by different figures of speech. 
And it is perfectly natural to represent a very abundant com- 
munication of the Spirit as being poured out from above,— 
from God, or from Christ; while, on the other hand, it 
might be, and it surely was, by the word, Bamzifw, repre- 
- sented as encompassing the apostles, and as being the very 
element or atmosphere of this new life. The two represen- 
tations are distinct, but not inconsistent; for they present 
different sides of the same marvellous act. — See Acts ii. 17, 
ieess dlcovisa xliv: 3. (cf. Acts i 4,5; Joel ii. 1—§). 
But is it not true that, with those who reject immersion, 
sprinkling is more frequent than pouring? And does éxyéw 
signify to “sprinkle”? Was the Holy Spirit “sprinkled” on 
the apostles? Were not their souls encompassed and perva- | 
ded by his presence? Was not the Pentecostal miracle a gift 
of new powers rather than a purification, even if sprinkling 
were the proper symbol of any other purification than that by 
atoning blood? (See Hague (W.) in Bap. Question, p. 76 sq.) 

As to the plea that Christianity is a spiritual faith, and 
therefore any thing like a scrupulous exactness in preserving 
the form of a rite is indefensible, we reply (1) that in sym- 
bolical language the form is essential, for it expresses the 
meaning: the form of the rite is the rite, for the rite itself is 


320 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


a form; and (2) that “it is of the essence of disobedience and 
rebellion to assume to make commutations and substitutions 
of duty, —to transfer obligation to where it would be less in- 
convenient that it should be enforced, and'to affect to render, 
in the form of preferred and easier services, an equivalent for 
the obedience which the righteous and supreme authority has 
distinctly required to be rendered in that harder service which 
is evaded.” — (John Foster, “The Glory of the Age,” 70.) 

As to the formula which should be used by the administra- 
tor of baptism, we think it is virtually given’in Matt. xxviii. 
19. Not that the words there recorded are necessary to the 
validity of the act, nor that the Saviour designed to have his 
words repeated as a prescribed form; but that they express 
briefly and clearly what ought to be said by the adminis- 
trator. The preposition es before 70 dvoya signifies zz¢o or 
unto ; and the telic clause signifies that the candidate enters 
publicly into a very close relation to the Holy Trinity, avow- 
ing himself a servant of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.’ 

An abbreviated formula, mentioning only the name of 
Christ, may have been sometimes used by the apostles. — 
(See Acts ii. 38; viii. 16; xix. 5). But there is no certain 
evidence of this. From the time of Justin Martyr, A.D. 130, 
the formula given by Christ was carefully observed; and, we 
presume, it was by the apostles themselves. 


u. Lhe Significance of the Rite. 


In determining the significance of baptism, our appeal 
must be to the language of the New Testament on this point, 
and to the natural import of the rite itself ; for ritual acts are, 
to a certain extent, self-interpreting, and there can be no 
reasonable doubt that, in most instances, their true meaning 
lies on the face of them,—that they were chosen as being a 
sort of universal language, readily understcod by men of 
every age and nation. Hence, where the natural language of 
the ritual act accords with the explanation of it by the sacred 
writers, there remains no ground for doubt; assurance be- 
comes doubly sure. And this is true in the present case. 


Christian Churches and Ordinances. 321 


For, looking at the ritual act, and at the language of Scrip- 
ture, we remark (1) That zt symbolizes the regeneration of the 
subject, as being, on the one hand, a dying to sin, ant, on the 
other, a rising to holiness— (See Rom. vi. 4; Col. ii. 12; to- 
gether with the passages cited under “Penalty of Sin,” (I.) 
(1) 2 (4), and under “ Nature of Regeneration)”. (2) The lan- 
guage of Prof. Lightfoot, quoted under (d) above, clearly 
expresses the meaning of Paul, but need not be repeated. 

(2) That it commemorates the accomplished death and resur- 
rection of Christ (Rom. vi. 3; Col. ii. 12; Mark x. 38, 39; 
Luke xii. 50). Says Dr. Dollinger, “St. Paul made this 
immersion a symbol of burial with Christ, and the emerging 
a Sign of resurrection with him to a new life.” And Messner 
remarks, with equal clearness, “Peculiar to Paul is the man- 
ner in which he connects the two acts of the rite of baptism, 
as then administered ; namely, the submersion and the emer- 
sion, with the idea of fellowship with Christ in his death and 
resurrection, —a view which, in this definite form, belongs to 
him alone. While the submersion symbolizes the putting off 
of the old man, the emersion from the water is an emblem of 
the reception of a new divine life; and, because the former is 
considered by him as an effect of the death of Christ, the 
latter is brought into connection with the resurrection of 
Christ. Thus Paul connects the act of submersion with the 
death of Christ, and that of emersion with the resurrection of 
Christ, —a symbolism of the baptismal rite which has lost 
its significance with the disappearance of the rite as then 
observed.” ? 

The same explanation of the apostle’s language may be 
found in the works of numerous Pedobaptist scholars; and 
there is no good reason whatever for doubting its correctness. 

(3) Lhat it represents this regeneration as a purifying 

ferangen Acts xsi. 1G;\ Titus ii,’ 5 ; Eph. v.26 cf. 1 Peter 
il. 21). To this part of the symbolism of baptism, those per- 
sons who reject immersion attach almost exclusive impor- 
tance; and they maintain that this part of the meaning 


1 Messner (H.) “ Die Lehre der Apostel,” s. 279—So. 


322 Manual of Systematic Theology. — 


symbolized is set forth as clearly by sprinkling as by immer- 
sion. But there is abundant reason to doubt whether biblical 
writers ever express the idea of purification by the sprinkling 
or pouring of mere water upon a person or object.’ 

The only passage where this seems at first sight to be the 
case is Ezek. xxxvi. 25, —‘‘ Then will I sprinkle clean water 
upon you, and ye shall be clean; from all your filthiness, and 
from all your idols will I cleanse you,’ &c. But the words 
“clean water” should rather be “pure water,’ meaning the 


“water of purification,’ in which the ashes of the heifer of - 


purification had been steeped. Num. xix. 11-22 (ef. viii. 
5-22). Says Hengstenberg, “The sprinkling with water 
las likewise the shedding of blood for its foundation. It was 
done with such water only as had in it the ashes of the sin- 
offering of .the red heifer.’ — (See Heb. ix. 13, 14.) —“It is 
very evident that there is an allusion in this passage to the 
Mosaic rites of purification; especially to the holy water, in 
which the ashes of the red heifer were mixed, and which 
served as an antidote, first to the greatest of all defile- 
ments, — contact with a corpse, —and then to defilements in 
general,’’? 

But washing or bathing in water is a natural symbol of 
purification; and, if Baptists have not insisted on this as 
often as on other ideas symbolized by immersion in water, it 
is perhaps due in part to a reaction of feeling against the 
exclusive reference made to it by Pedobaptists; yet they 
have by no means failed to recognize this part of the mean- 
ing conveyed by the rite. Says Dr. Chase, “In baptism, 
there is retained, in all its significancy, the idea of cleansing 
or purification; for the water in which we are buried is a 
purifying element. Thus.there is a figurative washing away 
of sins, —a putting off of the body of sinful propensities, and, 
as it were, a depositing of it in the grave, — from which, in 


1 For tnis view, the writer is indebted to an admirable and conclusive tract on 
the subject, by the Rev. J. C. Wightman. 

2“ Christology of the Old Testament,” trans]. by T. Meyer, Vol. II. p. 271 
and Vol. III. p. 47. : 


Christian Churches and Ordinances. 323 


this emblerh, we come forth as alive from the dead, to walk 
in newness of life, and at length to enter on the life everlast- 
ing.” And this is but a sample of the language often used 
by Baptists. 

It may be added in this place, that baptism is emblematical 
of the candidate’s experience,— an act of confession by 
which his own conscience is obeyed and filled with peace 
(1 Peter iii. 21). It is fitly administered by regularly ordained 
ministers of the gospel; and, though its validity does not 
really depend on the spiritual or ecclesiastical standing of 
the administrator, it is highly important, for the sake of 
order, decorum, and a reverent performance of the rite, that 
the standing of the administrator should be in all respects 
unexceptionable. 

If necessary, in order that the baptism of suitable candi- 
dates be not omitted, a church may even select one of its lay 
members to administer the ordinance: but this is very rarely, 
if ever, necessary. Only in extreme cases.would it be wise 
to deviate thus from the usual order. We may also remark, 
that a baptism administered by a clergyman who has never 
been baptized himself may be valid for the candidate. The 
ordinance expresses the candidate’s entrance upon a new 
life, —his union with Christ, not with the administrator; and, 
if it be reverently performed, need not be repeated. 


‘un The Subjects of the Rite. 


On this point, Baptists differ more widely from other 
denominations than on the rite itself; or, rather, the differ- 
ence between them and others on the former point is more 
important than the difference on the latter; for they hold 
that ony believers in Christ are entitled to baptism, and that 
only those who give credible evidence of faith in him should be 
baptized. 

In proof of this, they appeal, — 

1. Lo the great commission (Matt. xxviii. 19; Mark xvi. 
16). For it is believed that the verb translated “teach,” in 
the former passage, means to “make disciples by teaching,” 


1“The Design of Baptism,” &c., p. 21. 


324 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


even as Paul declares that “ God was pleased by the foolish 
ness of preaching to save them that believe” (1 Cor. i. 21); 
and that the consecration by baptism is mentioned afterwards, 
because it was to be subsequent in fact, — first, discipleship 
in heart, then a public profession of it in baptism. 

But this interpretation has been called in question; and it 
has been said that the participial clauses describe the way in 
which the duty expressed by the verb “teach” is to be per- 
formed: thus, “Go make all the nations disciples, by bap- 
tizing and teaching them all things which I have commanded 
you.” That this is not required by the use of language in 
the New Testament may be seen by consulting the following 
passages (Matt. vill. 27; ix. 33, 35; XIX. 25; XXi. IO, 20; XXVi. 
8; also Matt. xvii. 14; xix. 3; xxii. 16; Luke vi. 35; Matt. 
xix. 28; also Col. ili. 16; Eph. v. 18-21; vi. 17, 18; 1 Tim. 
vi. 20; Acts xx. 20, 30, 31, 37, 38; xxii. 16; Joelaaaumeses 
Cor. xv. 58; 1 Tim. ‘i. 12; Rom. xv. 25; James ii@y doume 
ii. 45; Acts xv. 27; Heb. xiii: 13; 2 Peter ii gg ateeeeeeee 
22; also Wiberg and Ingham on Baptism). And that it is 
not the meaning which lies on the face of the passage may be 
proved by the impression which the passage makes on ninety- 
nine out of a hundred who read it, as well as by the course 
which the apostles took in spreading the gospel. — (See Hof- 
mann (J. C. K. v.) “Der Schriftbeweis,” II. s. 164). Yet if 
the word translated “teach” be understood to signify “make 
disciples,” and the following participial clauses be understood 
to set forth in: general the way of doing this, it is to be 
observed (2) That no one becomes a “disciple” of another, 
unless it be by his own preference and choice. (6) That such 
preference and choice presuppose a knowledge of the Master 
selected, and a willingness to be taught and trained by him. 
(c) That baptism would then be the act by which discipleship 
was formally avowed and openly begun. (d) That it would be 
an expression of faith in Christ, including a purpose to be 
guided by him in all things. And (e) That discipleship would 
only be consummated when the followers of Christ had been 
taught all things which he commanded. 


Christian Churches and Ordinances. 325 


But this last point suggests the remark, that a disciple is a 
learner, —not one who has learnt all which the Master has 
to teach; that a person is a disciple as soon as he accepts one 
as his teacher and guide. And this circumstance is almost, 
or quite, decisive against the interpretation proposed. 

2. To the practice of the apostles and their contemporaries 
Peters a3, 41 3) Vili; 12,13 5 1x. 185 & 44,475. XV. 14, 15, 
31, 33; xviii. 8). There should, it would seem from these 
portions of the New Testament, be no doubt as to the prac- 
tice of the apostles and those acting under their direction. 
Faith in Christ, with a radical change of heart towards God, 
preceded baptism. But, if it should be thought by any that 
the Great Commission, as given by Matthew, embraces both 
baptism and teaching in the work of making men disciples of 
Christ, —a view which we reject, —it would still be evident, 
from the course pursued by the apostles, that faith in Christ 
was required in order to baptism. Whatever knowledge must 
precede a hearty acceptance of Christ as Saviour and Lord 
must precede baptism and avowed discipleship. 

3. To apostolic language concerning it (Rom vi. 3, 4; Gal. 
iii, 27; I Peter iii. 21). The language of Peter is a veritable 
crux interpretum. He says clearly enough what baptism is 
not; namely, “a putting away of filth of flesh,” the emphasis 
being on the word “ flesh,” but more darkly what it is, — adie 
ouredicewms ayaO7s imegotnuc sig Dedv— translated by Noyes, 
“The earnest seeking for a good conscience toward God” ; 
by Alford, “The inquiry of‘a good conscience after God” ; 
by the Bible Union Committee, “The requirement of a good 
conscience toward God”; and in the common version, 
“ The answer of a good conscience toward God.” Tertullian 
appears to have had this passage in mind, when he wrote 
(de resur. carnis): anima non lavatione, sed responsione 
sancitur, 

If, with Noyes, Wiesinger, and others, the genitive cuved7- 
sews is regarded as objective, the expression, “good con- 
science,” must signify a staté of mind resulting from obedi- 
ence to the will of God,—a sense of peace and fellowship 


326 Manual of Systematic Theology. 
: 


with him’ and an earnest seeking for this in the prescribed 
way must certainly presuppose faith in the seeker. If, with 
Alford, Huther, and many others, the genitive ovvedycews is 
held to be subjective, the expression, “ good conscience,” nat- 
urally signifies the candidate’s purity of religious intention, 
resulting from a belief of the gospel and desire to obey the 
Lord. But against the view of Alford may be urged the 
remark of Huther, “That baptism, on the part of man, is not 
so much a seeking after God as rather a confession of having 
found him.” Yet looking at Baptism from the sacramental. 
point of view, and remembering that the entire life of a be- 
liever is a drawing near to God (see Thomas Aquinas, “de 
motu ad Deum’), a seeking after him, it must be easy to 
regard this as “the aim and end of the baptismal life.” But 
any view of the passage is unfavorable to infant baptism; for 
infants neither seek nor obey a good conscience in baptism. 

4. To the usage of the church for upwards of two centu- 
vies. — See “Christian Review,” Vol. XVI. Dr. Ripley ; and 
Vol. XIX. Dr. Chase; also “ Baptist Quarterly,” Vol. III. p. 
168 sq. 

But there are many persons who add to “believers in 
Christ,” their children, as proper subjects of baptism. And 
they rely upon such statements as follow to justify their 
view; namely, — 

1. Baptism under the new covenant takes the place of cir- 
cumcision under the old. 

Reply. If this be true, it does not follow that the natural 
offspring of believers should be baptized: for the initiatory 
rite may belong to natural offspring in one case, and to 
spiritual in the other; to babes, and to “new-born babes.” 


1See Wall (Wm.) “The History of Infant Baptism,” &c.; Gale (J.) “ Reflec- 
tions on Mr. Wall’s History of Infant Baptism,” &c.; Hibbard (F. G.) “ Chris- 
tian Baptism,” “ Part First, Infant Baptism”; Ingham (R.) “The Theology of 
the Commission on the Subjects of Baptism,” and “ Christian Baptism: its Sub- 
jects”; Hodges (W.) “Baptism tested by Scripture and by History”; Booth 
(A.) ‘ Pedobaptism Examined,” &c., Vol. II. of his work on baptism; Chase (I.) 
“Infant Baptism an Invention of Men.” 


Christian Churches and Ordinances. 327 


Being born of the flesh, and being born of the Spirit, may be 
prerequisite to circumcision’and baptism respectively. 

That this is true, we conclude (a) From the fact that God 
established the old covenant with Abraham and his natural 
seed (Gen. xvii. 10-14); but the new covenant with Christ 
and a spiritual seed (John iii. 3-7; Rom. ix. 6-8; ii. 28, 29; 
mame 28, 20; 1 Peter: 235 1 Cor iv, v5';: James’ 1. -18'(cl. 
flee ve 12-04; 1. Peter ii, 1,2; Matt. xi. 25; and see also 
ake xiv. 26, 33; Mark iii..34, 35; ;Heb. ii. 133 1 Peter. 5; 
Heb. viii. 10, 11). (0) From the fact that the subjects of 
each rite are carefully described, and are not the same. — 
(See Gen. xvii. 10 sq.; and Mark xvi. 16; Acts viii, 12.) 
The male children of Jews, and the male servants of Jews, 
with their male children, were to be circumcised; while 
believers in Christ, both male and female, Jew and Gentile, 
were to be baptized. 

But, still further, it is evident that baptism did not,take the 
place of circumcision in the apostolic church :— 

(1) From the fact that the rite of circumcision was prac- 
tised by the Jewish Christians, along with baptism, for a con- 
siderable period (Acts xvi. 3; xi. 3 sq.; Gal. ii. 12 sq.; Acts 
xxi. 20 sq.). In proof of a distinction between the Jewish 
Sabbath and the Lord’s day, Hengstenberg (Ueber den Tag 
des Herrn, s. 104) says, “ Mosheim appeals to the fact that 
the Sabbath was observed along with Sunday. Such a co. 
observance of the Sabbath has indeed no meaning, if Sunday 
had entered simply into its place.” —“ Oh, most wise Judge!” 
Even so a co-observance of circumcision has no meaning if 
baptism had entered simply into its place. 

(2) From the fact that Paul, when opposing the circum- 
cision of Gentile converts, never hints that baptism takes its 
place. Says Neander, The dispute carried on with the 
Judaizing party on the necessity of circumcision would easily 
have given an opportunity of introducing this substitute, into 
the controversy, if it had really existed.’ 


1See Smith (J. T) “On the Covenant of Circumcision ”; also “The Tech 
nobaptist.” 


328 — Manual of Systematic Theology. , 


2. Lutire households were baptized by the apostles; and we 
must suppose there were infants in some of them. Acts xvi. 
15; 33,34; xyli.8; 1 Cor. i 16 (ch avin vga 

Reply. There is no evidence, nor is it probable, that any 
members of these households were infants or unbelievers. 
The best modern interpreters have dropped this argument. 

3. Christ blessed little children, and said, “ Of such is the 
kingdom of heaven”; and, if infants are saved by Christ, of 
course they are to be baptized (Mark x. 13-16; Luke xviii. 
15-17; Matt. xix. 13-15). 

_ Reply. (1) The words, “Suffer little children to come unto 
me,” do not point to babes, but to those a few years old, at 
least. (2) The language of Christ cannot be restricted to the 
children of believers; it means children as such. (3) The 
clause, “Of such is the kingdom of heaven,” as jnterpreted 
by Pedobaptists, affirms the salvation of all these and similar 
children, if it does of any. (4) Christ's disciples had not been 
accustomed to baptize little children, as such; for they did not 
see the propriety of their coming to Christ. (5) Christ did 
not baptize these children; for he baptized none. (6) There 
is no intimation that he now, for the first time, directed them 
to be baptized by his disciples. (7) The words, “Of such is 
the kingdom of heaven,” mean that persons of a child-like 
spirit belong to the kingdom; they compose it. 

Says -Archb. Thomson, “The account of the bringing of 
young childrex to Jesus unites again the three evangelists. 
Here, as often, St. Mark gives the most minute account of 
what occurred. After the announcement that the disposition 
of little children was the most meet for the kingdom of God, 
“THe took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, 
and blessed them.” The childlike spirit, which in nothing 
depends upon its own knowledge, but seeks to be taught, is 
in contrast with the haughty pharisaism with its boast of 
learning and wisdom; and Jesus tells them that the former is 
the passport to his kingdom.”?! It has been justly said, that 
“to infer infant baptism from Christ’s blessing little children 


1 Smith (W.) “ Dictionary of the Bible,” Am. Ed. Vol. II. p. 1370. 


Christian Churches and Ordinances. 329 


proves nothing so much as that there is want of better argu- 
ment. For the conclusion would, with greater probability, be 
derived thus: Christ blessed little children, and so dismissed 
them, but baptized them not; therefore infants are not to be 
baptized.” 

4. Children are said to be holy by virtue of their parents 
faith ; hence they must have been baptized (1 Cor. vii. 14). 

Reply. Paul’s argument seems to us to prove that the chil- 
dren of believers were not, as such, baptized ; for he argues 
that it is not contaminating for a Christian to live in wedlock 
with an ‘unbeliever, because it is not contaminating for him to 
live with his children. But there could surely be no force in 
this to one whose children had all been brought into a cove- 
nant relation with God. The heathen companion and the 
baptized children would not have stood on the same level, 
would not have been in the same fold; and hence the pro- 
priety of associating with the latter could not prove the pro- 
priety of doing the same with the former.— (See Neander, 
Rickert, Meyer, De Wette, Muller, Hackett, and others.) 

5. Lhe Fews would have made great complaint, if Chris- 
tianity had not admitted children to baptism. But we read of 
no such complaint; hence their infant seed were treated as 
well under the new covenant as under the old. 

Reply. The Jews who believed in Christ during the apos- 
tolic period continued for the most part to practise cir- 
cumcision; and regarded Christianity, we doubt not, as a 
separate, additional blessing for those who believed in Christ. 
The new did not displace the old; the rites of the new did 
mot supersede the rites of the old: hence there could be no» 
reason why Jews, more than others, should insist upon infant 
baptism. They were too much accustomed to associate par- 
ticular rites with particular conditions, to be surprised that 
repentance and faith were made the conditions of baptism. 
Says Neander, “Among the Jewish Christians, circumcision 
was held as a seal of the covenant; and hence they had so 
_much the less occasion to make use of another dedication of 
their children.” 


330. Manual of Systematic Theology. 


6. The early church admitted the children of believers to 
baptism ; hence it must have been an apostolic practice like- 
wise. 

Reply. If reference be had to the first two centuries after 
Christ, the statement is incorrect; if to a later period, it has 
no force. 

It may be added in this place (1) That the practice of 
infant baptism appears to have had its origin in the doctrine 
of baptismal regeneration. So far as history casts any light 
on this point, the latter preceded the former, and sacra- 
mentalism led to Technobaptism. (2) That the practice of 
infant baptism sustains and extends the doctrine of baptismal 
regeneration. If the theory led to the practice, the practice 
evermore leads back to the theory, and is empty without it; 
and (3) That the practice of infant baptism hasgmade the 
union of church and state possible. Without this practice, 
such a union would have been extremely improbable, if not 
impossible.* 4 

Iv. The Relation of the Rite to Fohn's Baptism. 

Many writers have taken the position, that Christian bap- 
tism is entirely distinct from John’s baptism; while others 
have considered them virtually the same. There is some- 
thing to be said for the former view, and something also for 
the latter. 

For the former, it is urged, — 

(a) That Fohn the Baptist belonged to the old dispensation, 
and therefore his baptism could not belong to the new. There 
is certainly evidence enough that he belonged to the old . 
economy (See Matt. xi. I1 sq.); but it may be that he 
belonged to the new also. Certainly both John and Christ 
passed most of life under the mosaic law. But John lived to 
point men to Christ, the Lamb of God; and his work had 
respect to the introduction of the new era rather than to the 
filling out of the old. It is therefore by no means certain 
that his relation to Judaism forbade him to introduce, by 
divine authority, an ordinance which belonged to Christianity, 


1 Hovey (A.) “Evils of Infant Baptism,” p. 41 sq. 


Christian Churches and Ordinances. 331 


(6) That he could not have administered baptism into the 
name of the Trinity. Possibly not; indeed, it seems scarcely 
probable that he used the formula which has been generally 
used by Christians; for this formula presupposes a fuller 
knowledge of the gospel than can be reasonably attributed to 
him. But if his words in baptizing were an epitome of his 
preaching, they must have implied allegiance to the Christ 
and the Spirit, as well as to the Father; for Luke testifies 
expressly, that he “evangelized” the people (ch. iii. 18); and 
John bears witness to nearly the same thing (i. 29 sq. 363 iL 
25 sq.), as well as Paul (Acts xix. 4). 

(c) That baptism was sometimes repeated when the followers 
of Fohn embraced Christianity, as preached by the apostles 
after the day of Pentecost (Acts xix. 1 sq.). In the only 
instance gf the kind recorded, “the disciples” had never 
heard “whether there is a Holy Spirit;” and it is therefore 
difficult to believe that they had been baptized by John him- 
self; for John had taught his disciplé8 to believe in him that 
should come after him, and had described Jesus as one who 
should baptize them in the Holy Spirit. This appears to 
have been an important feature of his preaching; and there- 
fore it is fair to presume that the disciples in question had 
not been taught and baptized by him. They had probably 
been baptized without suitable instruction, by some unen- 
lightened follower of John; and hence their baptism had no 
reference to Christ or to the Holy Spirit. 

But, on the other hand, it may be said (a2) That the ritual 
act was in both cases the same, representing the same inward 
change. Matt. ili.6sq.; Marki. 4 sq.; Luke iii. 3 sq. ; vil. 30; 
xx. 3 sq. (cf. the senior Edwards, I. p. 163). , 

(0) That repentance towards God, and faith in the Messiah, 
as the Giver of the Holy Spirit, were required in both cases 
(Matt. ili. 11 sq.; Mark i. 7 sq.; Luke iii. 15 sq.; John i. 27 
sq.; Acts xix. 4). It will be evident to those who study 
closely all the passages bearing on this point, that John 
invited none but renewed persons to his baptism. For (1) 
Repentance — pezuérou—is a change of mind and heart, 


332 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


implying. faith and love. By it one enters upon a new 
spiritual life. But was not the baptism which he administered 
unto or into repentance, — that is, a rite by which an impeni- 
tent man fledged himself to repent? Such a rite would 
have been absurd; for no impenitent man can give a satisfac- 
tory pledge of repentance in the future. It is a present duty ; 
and a refusal to do it now vitiates every promise to do it by 
and by. (2) Both Mark and Luke say that John came 
preaching “a baptism of repentance muszto the remission of 
sins” (Mark i. 4; Luke ii. 3); and the sins of unregenerate 
men cannot be forgiven. His baptism symbolized the begin- 
ning of a new spiritual life, to which those who received it 
devoted themselves. (3) Both Matthew and Mark testify 
that “ confession of their sins” was made by those who were 
baptized by John (Matt. iii. 6; Mark i. 5); doubtless then it 
was required by him as one of the clearest evidences of a new 
heart. Men do not readily make public confession of “ their 
sins,’ while still foes to God. (4) “ Fruits meet for repent- 
ance,” or rather, “worthy of repentance,” were required of 
some, — (See Matt. iii, 6-12; Luke iii. 7-14); and both 
from the expression itself and from the use made of it by 
Paul (Acts xxvi. 20), we know that it refers to fruits which 
reveal a penitent or changed mind, rather than those which 
will lead to it. The passages quoted above give ample proof 
that John accompanied the requirement of repentance with 
that of a readiness to welcome the Messiah, who should bap- 
tize in the Holy Spirit. 

(c) That baptism was not repeated when the followers of 
Fohn became disciples of Christ. Some suppose that many of 
the three thousand who were added to the church on the day 
of Pentecost had been disciples of John; but, if so, there ‘is 
no evidence of their re-baptism ; if so, there is no evidence of 
their being regarded as for the first time believers. They 
were probably said to be added, because now they were fully 
convinced of the Messiahship of Jesus, and were at last ready 
to avow themselves his followers. There is no proof to be 
found in the New Testament, that those baptized by John 


Christian Churches and Ordinances. 333 


were commonly re-baptized when they connected themselves 
with Christians. In Acts xviii. 24-28, the story of Apollos 
is told. He knew only the baptism of John; but there is no 
hint of his receiving Christian baptism. Aquila and Priscilla 
taught him the way of the Lord more perfectly, and that is 
all. “In every instance, unless this be an exception, where 
the case of an individual is mentioned in the Acts, as in a 
state requiring baptism, this rite is administered, and promi-— 
nent notice taken of it in the narrative.” Apollos was not bap- 
tized, because John’s baptism was virtually Christian baptism. 

(2) That the apostles themselves were, it is probable, only 
baptized with Fohn's baptism. This seems to be a natural 
inference from the narrative in the first chapter of John, 
verses 35-49; at least so far as those were concerned who 
had been baptized by the harbinger of Christ. If any of the 
twelve had not been immersed by John, they were doubtless 
introduced into the fellowship of the earlier apostles by the 
rite of baptism.—(See John iv. 1, 2). It is likewise to be 
noted, that Jesus himself submitted to John’s baptism (cf. 
Turretin, Loc. iii. Qu. xvi. p. 340 sq.). 

(e) That the new dispensation is represented as beginning 
“with the work of Fohn (Luke xvi. 16; Acts x. 36, 37; John 
i. 22 sq.). The first of these texts reads thus: “The law and 
the prophets (were), until John — peyer "Jodrvov; since then 
the kingdom of God is preached, and every one presseth 
forcefully into it.” Meyer says, “Since then (already by 
John himself) the good news of the Messiah’s kingdom has 
entered, and with what result! very one presses with force 
into zt.” And this is the only obvious meaning of the words. 

The reasons for believing that Christian baptism began 
with that of John, and only became more significant as the 
truths which it represented were more fully revealed, seem 
to us stronger than those which are supposed to show an 
essential difference between the two. 


Il. THE LORD'S SUPPER. 


In this case it is proper to consider the external rite, the 
import of the rite, and the proper communicants. 


334 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


1. The external rite. The institution of this rite by our 
Saviour has been described by four of the sacred writers 
(namely, Matthew xxvi. 26-29; Mark xiv. 22-25; Luke 
xxii, 19, 20; and Paul 1 Cor. xi. 23—25)5 eee 
several accounts, we learn the following facts in respect to 
the elements employed in this rite, and the way in which 
they were used : — 

1. The elements were bread and wine. The bread was 
doubtless wzleavened; yet this peculiarity is nowhere referred 
to by the sacred writers, or by Christ himself; and hence is 
not to be looked upon as significant. The wine is spoken of 
by Christ as “this fruit of the vine” (Matt. xxvi. 29; Mark 
xiv. 25); and it seems very desirable for us to make use of 
the same at the present day. 

2. The ritual use of these elements embraced (1) the 
eucharistic prayers; (2) the breaking of the bread, and giv- 
ing of the wine by the presiding officer; and (3) the eating 
and drinking of the respective elements by all the communi- 
cants. ; 

Remark a. We do not suppose that the s¢nging or chanting 
of Christ and his disciples, just before they went out into the 
Mount of Olives, was intended to bea part of the new ordi- 
nance; for it is mentioned by neither Luke nor Paul in 
describing the institution of the Lord’s Supper, and we do 
not find it anywhere enjoined as a part of this ordinance. 
The words sung by Christ and his disciples were probably 
the second part of the great Hallel,— namely, Psalms cxv., 
cxviii.— which the Jews were in the habit of singing after 
they had eaten the paschal lamb. It is, however, eminently 
proper to praise the Lord in song after partaking of the 
emblems of his death. 

R. 6. It has been conjectured, that, in the age of the 
apostles, the eucharistic prayers were offered by the whole 
body of the church in concert; but there is no good reason 
for this conjecture. The language of Paul (1 Cor. x. 16) 
would be perfectly natural, if all the members of the church 
were supposed to join in the prayers offered by the pastor, — 


Christian Churches and Ordinances. 335 


a fact which they were accustomed to signify by saying 
«“ Amen” at the close. 

u. The import of the Lord’s Supper. Since the elements 
represent the body and blood of the dying Saviour, the recep- 
tion of them, — 

1. Symbolizes the reception by faith of Christ crucified as 
the source and support of spiritual and eternal life (1 Cor. x. 
16; cf. John vi. 51, 53, 54). This implies, of course, a belief 
in the doctrine of the atonement. To believe in Christ crzcz- 
fied as the perpetual source of life is to believe in the atone- 
ment as that source. It implies also union with the spiritual 
body of Christ, by virtue of receiving him. This is a subordi- 
nate but important fact represented by the joint partaking of 
the Supper. It is the act of a family (1 Cor. x. 15-21). 

2. Commemorates the atoning death of Christ, or Christ as 
the Lamb of God offering himself in sacrifice for sin (1 Cor. 
Xl. 24, 26; v. 7). This office of the Lord’s Supper, it will be 
noticed, was very emphatically declared by the Saviour. 
Indeed, the commemorative import of this rite makes its 
symbolical meaning doubly impressive. That the emblems 
are also memorials, bringing the scenes of Calvary distinctly 
before the mind, adds greatly to their power in sustaining 
faith and love. 

3. Lypifies the marriage supper of the Lamb, or, in other 
words, the future blessedness of believers in the presence of 
Christ. Matt: xxvi. 29; Mark xiv. 25; 1 Cor. xi. 26: (cf. 
Matt. xxii. 2 sq.; xxv. 10; Rev. xix. 7-9). Some theolo- 
gians have doubted whether the Lord’s Supper is really 
typical of heavenly fellowship and joy; but the passages 
referred to are sufficient evidence that it is. 

Remark a. It appears from several passages that the paschai 
lamb was, in some sense, a type, not of the Lord’s Supper, 
but of Christ himself. 1 Cor. v. 7; John xix. 36 (cf. Ex. xii. 
46; and Num. ix. 12.) But, if the paschal lamb bore some 
resemblance to Christ, the paschal supper must naturally 
have borne some resemblance to the Lord’s Supper. The 
former, in fact, commemorated the deliverance of the natural 


336 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


Israel from temporal ruin; while the latter commemorates 
the deliverance of the spiritual Israel from eternal ruin. As 
the Jewish people typified the true Israel, so likewise did 
many Jewish rites foreshadow Christian realities, but not 
Christian rites. 

R. b. Breaking the bread and pouring out the wine are 
important parts of the ordinance; for they increase its com- 
memorative power by bringing the death of Christ more 
vividly to mind. This is lost by the Catholic form. 

R.c. The papal custom of withholding the cup from lay- 
men is not authorized by the word of God; though several 
expressions in the New Testament are appealed to as fur- 
nishing, at least by implication, this authority. For example, 
Acts ii. 42; xx. 7,11; 1 Cor. xi. 27-20; (but GiagGueeee 

R.d. The papal doctrines of transubstantiation, and sacri- 
fice of the mass are unscriptural. — (See Heb. vii. 27; ix. 26, 
28 ;-x. 10 (cf. Mal. i. 11), for conclusive proof of this remark.) 

For the papal doctrine, see “ Canones et Decreta Concilii 
Tridentini,” p. 66, i.: “Si quis negaverit, in sanctissimz 
eucharistize sacramento contineri vere, realiter et substantial- 
iter corpus et sangninem una cum ANIMA et DIVINITATE 
Domini nostri Jesu Christi, ac proinde totum Christum; sed 
dixerit tantummodo esse in eo, ut in signo vel figura aut vir- 
tute: anathema sit.” Yet Christ says expressly of one of the 
elements which he had consecrated, “I will not dvizk again 
of this fruz¢ of the vine,” &c. 

R. e. The Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation is ex- 
ceedingly unnatural, and no more scriptural than the papal 
doctrine. Could the disciples have supposed the real body 
and blood of Christ present in the elements, bread and wine, 
which they received from him? It does not seem possible. 
Yet the Augsburg Confession says, “De Ccena Domini 
docent, quod corpus et sanguis Christi vere adsint et dzstribu- 
antur vescentibus in ccena Domini, et improbant secus do- 
centes,” (A.D. 1530;) and the Formula of Concord says, 
“Credimus, quod in coena Domini corpus et sanguis Christi 
vere et substantialiter sint przesentia, et quod una cum pane 
et vino vere distribuantur atque sumantur,” (A.D. 1579.) 


Christian Churches and Ordinances. 337 


R. f. The view which regards the elements as merely 
emblems of the body and blood of Christ rests upon a simple 
and obvious interpretation of Christ’s language. — (See John 
mive 65 XV. 5; Luke xii. 1; Heb. x: 20; Philem. 12, and Ex. 
Mite ni:) see Bib. Sac. I. p. 245 sq. 

R. g. The New Testament nowhere prescribes when or 
how often this ordinance is to be observed. It was, however, 
in all probability, observed more frequently in the apostolic 
church than it is by Christians at the present day. Whether 
a more frequent observance of this rite is now desirable can 
only be determined by careful observation. 

ul. The proper communicants. For the sake of treating 
this topic in a practical way, we offer the following questions 
and replies, namely : —’ 

1. Should any except credible believers in Christ be invited 
to the Lord’ s Supper? 

Replying in the negative, we appeal, — 

1. To the import of the ordinance itself. It is partly com- 
memorative, — “This do in remembrance of me.” It is a 
memorial of the dying Redeemer. But those who have no 
true faith in Christ, who are at heart self-righteous, who 
reject his proffered aid, cannot properly commemorate his 
death. Again, it is partly symbolical: “Take, eat; this is 
my body which was broken for you.” The act of eating and 
drinking the consecrated elements is made prominent; and by 
it the communicants signify their reception of Christ as the 
support of their spiritual life. How, then, can any person 
who rejects the Saviour wish or dare to approach his table? 
Or how can one who gives no satisfactory evidence of faith in 
Christ, or fellowship with him, be invited to his table ? 


1See Edwards (J. the elder) “On the Qualifications for Full Communion”; 
Arnold (A. N.) “Qualifications for the Lord’s Supper”; Curtis (T. F.) “The 
Distinction between Christian and Church Fellowship, and between Communion 
and its Symbols”; Elowell (R. B. C.) “The Terms of Communion at the Lord’s 
Table”; Denison (F.) “The Supper Institution”; Pepper (G. D. B.) “Open 
Communion,” “ Bap. Quarterly,” Vol. I; Sarles (J. W.) “ Qualifications for the 
Communion,” in the “ Madison Avenue Lectures’’; Hovey (A.) “Close Com- 
munion”; Bunyan (J.) “Reason for my Practice in Worship,” II. 602; Hall (R.) 
“Terms of. Communion.” 


338 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


2. To the example of the apostolic churches. So far as this 
point is concerned, their practice seems to have been uniform. 
The sacred emblems were never offered to unbelievers. But 
is the example of churches under apostolic guidance of any 
weight in the present case? We believe it is; for when Paul 
declares, with reference to a practice far less closely con- 
nected with the gospel than this, “ We have no such custom, 
neither the churches of God,” he appears to regard this fact 
as a final argument against it. Moreover, the practice now in 
question must have been established by the apostles; for 
they received the ordinance from Christ, and caused it to be 
observed in the primitive church. ; 

3. Lo the caution which Paul gave to the Corinthians.— 
“ Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread, 
and drink of the cup,’—words which imply the need of 
special preparation for the ordinance. Whoever does not 
appreciate the sacrifice of Christ, and does not feel his need 
of it as an atonement for sin, is unprepared for the Lord’s 
Supper. If he partake, it will be “ unworthily, not discerning 
the Lord’s body.”—“ He will eat and drink judgment to 
himself.” 

u. Should any except baptized believers be invited to the 
Lord's Supper? We reply in the negative, and justify our 
answer by an appeal, — ; 

1. Zo the relation of the two ordinances to each other as 
symbols. Baptism symbolizes the beginning of the new life; 
and the Lord’s Supper, its nourishment. The former repre- 
sents a change from one spiritual condition into another, — 
putting off the old, and putting on the new,—death and 
resurrection; while the latter represents growth, — progress 
in a present condition. The one sets forth a single event; the 
other, an ever-recurring duty and refreshment. As the life of 
faith must be originated before it can be nourished, so an 
ordinance which represents the inception of this life must 
naturally precede one which represents its existence and sup- 
port. In baptism, the sinner publicly declares his allegiance — 
to Christ; at the Lord’s table, he takes his place among the 


Christian Churches and Ordinances. 339 


acknowledged friends of Jesus, and receives from him tokens 
of love and favor. By baptism, he is formally qualified for 
the duties and privileges of citizenship; by the Lord’s Sup- 
per, he is formally recognized and honored as a citizen. 

2. To the practice of Christian churches in the apostolic 
age. We find no hint in the sacred record of the presence of 
unbaptized persons at the Lord’s table; but we do find that 
baptism was treated as the first great duty to be done after 
exercising faith, and that the eucharist, when noticed at all, is 
assigned to those who were already baptized. In no case is 
the Lord’s Supper put before baptism; in no case are 
believers brought into the church, and afterwards baptized. 

But to this it has been objected, that some of the eleven, 
who were present at the institution of the Supper, had never 
been baptized at all; and that none of them had received 
Christian baptism. In reply, we remark (1) That John’s bap- 
tism was substantially the same as Christian; (2) That sev- 
eral of the eleven had been baptized by John prior to their 
connection with Jesus; (3) That all of them had probably 
been thus baptized. For John was sent expressly to pre- 
pare the way of the Lord; and, in default of evidence to the 
contrary, it may be presumed that men whose hearts had 
been prepared by his preaching were selected by our Saviour 
to be his personal attendants. Besides, the promptness with 
which they left all, and followed Christ, is favorable to this 
view. (4) That Jesus, by the hands of his disciples, baptized 
others who believed in him; and, if it was his custom to have 
his followers baptized, it may be taken for granted that he 
did not make the case of the twelve an exception. He was, 
moreover, himself baptized,—a fact which strengthens our 
conviction that his chosen were also baptizea. 

ut. Should any but those whose church-walk is ohierly be 
invited to the Lord's Supper? No persons, we reply, but 
those who are members of some Christian church, whose 
deportment agrees with the gospel of Christ, and who strive 
together for the faith of the gospel, should be invited to the 
communion. In support of this position, we remark, — 


340 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


1. That becoming connected with a Christian church natu 
rally precedes partaking of the eucharist. By baptism, one 
avows himself a servant and soldier of Christ. But the army 
of Christ is made up of different companies, —one here 
another there; and he can have no regular connection with 
it, unless he joins one of these companies, or, in other words, 
a particular church. Uniting with a local church is therefore 
the natural sequence or counterpart of the baptismal vow. 
Hence baptism is often, called the door into the church ; and 
membership is supposed to follow it as a matter of course. 
Ordinarily it should do so, and thus precede admission to the 
Lord’s Supper. The latter is to be repeated till the close of 
life; while the former,— uniting with a Christian church, 
— is, like baptism, an act to be performed but once, unless a 
repetition is made necessary by local changes. 

2. That the Lord’s Supper is, properly speaking, a church 
rite, and should therefore be restricted to church members in 
good standing. It was meant, we believe, to be observed, not 
by individual Christians at will, nor by irresponsible com- 
panies of believers, but by the churches of Christ as such, 

(1) This view is justified by the language of Paul to the 
Corinthians (1 Cor. x. 16, 17; xi. 18-34). Several points 
are fixed by these words of the apostle ; for example : — 

(2) The Corinthian Christians were evidently accustomed to 
meet together to observe the Lord’s Supper. No less than 
four times, within the space of a few verses, does Paul con- 
nect their coming together in one place with the celebration 
of the eucharist. To do this seems to have been the avowed 
and principle object of their assembling. 

(2) They could not properly observe it without coming 
together. This is evidently implied. Many things could be 
done by Christians separately and at home. “ Have ye not 
houses to eat and to drink in ?” —“ If any man is hungry, let 
him eat at home;” but it does not seem to have entered the 
apostle’s mind that the Lord’s Supper could be eaten at 
home. 

(c) They came together “in church,” to observe the Lord’s 


Christian Churches and Ordinances. 341 


Supper. .When Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthians, 
the word éxx2yote had already become the appropriate desig- 
nation of an organized body of Christians ; and, in the pas- 
sage before us, it must be used in this sense,—a sense 
which it generally has in this Epistle. Hence the words & 
éxxincia signify “in church form or capacity,” and show 
that the Corinthian believers celebrated the eucharist as a 
church. 

In no other instance has an inspired writer spoken at 
length of the manner of celebrating the Lord’s Supper in 
the apostolic churches. If the New Testament anywhere 
shows with sufficient clearness the practice of those churches 
which were planted and trained by the apostles, it is in this 
letter; and, in this letter, the trdinance is represented as 
observed by the church as such. 

(2) Looking back from this, the fullest account of the 
eucharist in the New Testament, we find a brief reference to 
it in Acts xx. 7: “And in the first day of the week, when we 
were assembled to break bread,” &c. That there were disci- 
ples in Troas is not denied; and that they were a regular 
church is almost certain. — See Acts xvi. 8; 2 Cor. ii. 12, 13 
(cf. Acts xiv. 23; Tit. i. 5). 

(3) Going back still further, we find another record in Acts 
ii. 41, 42. The Christians here spoken of were already bap- 
tized ; they were under the guidance and teaching of the 
apostles ; they met together almost daily for social worship; 
they provided for their poor with great liberality ; and they 
_ were living in the same city. Hence they were, to all intents 
and purposes, a Christian church. If not, when did they 
become such a body? They are called expressly by this 
uaine a few verses farther on; and, after this record of their 
breaking bread, they are habitually spoken of as “the church 
at Jerusalem.” 

But it may be said, they did not meet together and observe 
the Lord's Supper as a church; for they are described as 
“breaking bread from house to house.” In reply, it may be 
remarked, that the circumstances of the church at Jerusalem 


342 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


were peculiar. The disciples of Jesus could use neither 
temple nor synagogue for any service distinctively Christian. 
Meyer, De Wette, Alford, Bengel, and others, think that xa7’ 
oixov means a private house, or a house of their own, as dis- 
tinguished from the temple; but even if they had no house 
large enough to receive them all, and therefore met in several 
places to break bread, — one or two of the apostles presiding 
over each assembly,—this provisional arrangement would 
not have caused the Holy Supper to be esteemed a family or 
social-rite; for only those who had been baptized, and were 
walking together in the faith, partook of it. The emblems 
were not carried out of the church as an associated body of 
believers, nor were they used at pleasure by families, or 
groups of brethren. 

(4) Finally, we come to the institution of the Supper by 
our Saviour himself. There were doubtless many Christians 
in Jerusalem at the passover when the Supper was instituted ; 
but they were in no proper sense a church,—a distinct, 
responsible body,—called out from the rest of the nation, 
and acting together as the servants of Christ. ‘“ For the 
Greek word éxxdyoia, which expresses the idea of evoking, 
calling out, expresses also the idea of convoking, calling 
together, and is therefore most applicable to a Christian 
church as a select, organized body, called out by direct choice 
from the mass of men, and called together by divine authority 
as a spiritual corporation.” —(Alexander.)! On the other 
hand, the little band of disciples to whom the Supper was 
first administered were essentially such a body. They had 
been summoned to his side by the Saviour, were his recog- 
nized and constant followers, were under his instruction, 
were the champions of his cause, had a common purse and 
treasurer, were united in belief and action, and, in a word, 
were a responsible community, separated from the world, and 
associated together in the service of Christ. 


(5) It is also to be observed, that when we read of the bap- 


tism of single individuals, or even of households, —as of Paul, 


USee also Litton (E. A.) “The Church of Christ,” ch. IV. p. 203 sq. 


a 


Christian Churches and Ordinances. 343 


of the Ethiopian eunuch, of Lydia, of the Philippian jailer, 
and of Crispus at Corinth,—there is never any allusion to 
the Lord’s Supper as following the baptism ; but, when great 
numbers were baptized on the day of Pentecost, there some- 
times is a reference to the Supper as presently observed. 

3. That this ordinance appears to have been restricted by 

the-carly Christians to church members. Says Justin Martyr, 
“First Apology,” ch. 66 (A.D. 138-9), “ This food is called 
among us evyeo.otia, of which no one is allowed to partake 
who does not believe that what we teach is true, and has not 
been bathed the bath for the remission of sins and unto 
regeneration, and does not live as Christ has enjoined.” 
Three prerequisites are here laid down, — faith, baptism, and 
an orderly walk ; and there is abundant evidence that these 
were insisted upon by Christians of every name for a long 
time. : 
As the eucharist is a church ordinance, Baptists generally 
hold that none but members of the church, observing it, are 
strictly entitled to partake; and that none can properly be 
invited to join with them who could not be welcomed, with- 
out change of views, to full membership. They also hold that 
those who are giving, and are pledged to give, the weight of 
their influence against what is believed to be essential to 
Christian obedience, cannot properly be received into its fel- 
lowship. If admitted, they would sow dissension, and thus 
prove themselves “heretics” in the primitive sense of the 
term. 

But members of Pedobaptist churches do steadily affirm 
and teach by their ecclesiastical position, that infant sprink- 
ling is, in effect, Christian baptism ; or else that baptism is 
not prerequisite to full membership and an orderly walk in a 
Christian church. In either case, they throw the whole 
weight of their example against the practice of Christian 
baptism, —a practice which, in the judgment of Baptists, is 
essential to Christian obedience. How, then, can their 
church-walk be indorsed as orderly? If the members of a 
Baptist church were, in some other way, to act as decisively 


344 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


against this doctrine and practice, they would justly be 
esteemed by their brethren subverters of the truth, and origi- 
nators of division. — (See Rom. xvi. 17; and cf, Titus iii. 10; 
Gal. wir2 ;1 Cor. i610): 

But, if a Baptist church ought to withdraw the hand of 
fellowship from those who set themselves firmly against the 
duty of obeying a plain command of Christ, it surely has no 
right to offer this hand to the same persons when united to 
another church, or to any persons who persistently assail the 
duty in question. If communion at the Lord’s table were the 
sign of Christian fellowship merely, the case would be dif- 
ferent ; but such a sign it can never be while, besides faith, 
baptism and an orderly church-walk are the scriptural terms 
of admission to the Lord’s Supper. 

It may now be remarked, that Baptists heartily acknowl- 
edge both the duty and the privilege of Christian fellowship 
with all who love the Lord, and approve of denominational 
co-operation, if and so far as it requires no one to disre- 
gard his convictions as to the paramount claims of Christ. 
To “love the truth and peace” is their watchword (Zech. 
Viii, 19). 


Doctrine of the Last Things. 345 


PAR DL SEVENTH. 


DOCTRINE OF THE LAST THINGS. 


THE topics to be considered in this part of theology are 
Natural Death, the Intermediate State, the Second Advent of 
Christ, the Resurrection of the Dead, the Last Judgment, the 
Final State of Unbelievers, and the Final State of Believers. 
Some of them may be treated briefly, but others will require 
careful study.’ 

I, NATURAL DEATH. 

In discussing the Penalty of Sin, it was necessary to speak 
of natural death ; and, on that account, it will be sufficient to 
reiterate our conclusions in this place. In that discussion, it 
was shown that natural death does not put an end to the con- 
scious existence of the soul, —that the separation of the body 
from the spirit leaves the latter in possession of all its essen- 
tial powers. Further evidence of this will be embraced in 
the testimonies which will be brought from the word of God, 
to show the condition of man after death. 


II. THE INTERMEDIATE STATE? 


By this is meant the state of men between their bodily 
death and resurrection. That there is such a state must be 
assumed for the present; but we shall soon have occasion to 


1“Studien und Kritiken,” IX. s. 271 ff.; Weisse (C. H.) “Ueber die philo- 
sophische Bedeutung der Christlichen Lehre von den letzten Dingen,” s. 271 ff. 

2 Brown (J.) “The Dead in Christ: their State Present and Future’’; Kitto’s 
“«Jaurnal of Sacred Literature,” for Jan. 1850, “Onthe Separate State ”; ‘“ Chris- 
tian Review,” 1855, D. W. Phillips, ‘The Intermediate State”; Bib. Sac., G. H. 
Griffin, “Place and Condition of the Departed”; Calvin (J.) “ Psychopanny- 
chia,” &c.; “Meth. Quarterly,” 1850, J. Porter, “The Condition of the Dead”; 
Estes (H. C.) ““The Christian Doctrine of the Soul”; Hovey (A.) “State of 
Men after Death”; “Church Review,” 1852, “The Place of Departed Spirits”; 
Weitzel (Dr.) “Die Urchristliche Unsterblichkeitslehre,” Stu. u. Kr. IX. s. 
$79 ff. und 895 ff.; Fitch (E. T.) “ Theol., Hades, the Invisible State”; “ New 
Englander,” 1864, p. 125 sq.; Konig (J. L.) “ Die Lehre von Christi Héllenfahrt.” 


346 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


exhibit the proof of it, by showing that there will be a simul- 
‘taneous resurrection of the dead. Almost all Christians feel 
a particular solicitude about the condition of human souls 
immediately after death. The proximity of that state to this 
invests it with double interest. Friends accompany their 
friends to the very borders of it, and know that, when the 
latter close their eyes here, they open them at once there, — 
know that in a moment their loved ones are in the state that 
lies between time and eternity, — between existence in a nat- 
ural body and existence in a spiritual body. Besides, that is 
a profoundly mysterious life which connects the one before 
death with the one beyond the judgment, —a life of waiting 
for the Lord, with how much of blessed service on the part of 
the righteous, no one knows; for the teaching of Scripture 
concerning the middle state is neither full nor explicit, but it 
assures us of these facts :— 

1. That the spirits of the departed are bodiless in that state. 
This may be inferred (1) From the joy which Paul expresses 
in view of the resurrection at the coming of Christ (1 Cor. xv. 
54). (2) From the way in which the Scriptures connect our 
present and our future bodies (John v. 28; 1 Cor. xv. 44, 51, 
52; Phil. iii. 21). Were we to have other bodies in the 
middle state, the language of these passages would be unnat- 
ural. (3) From those texts of Scripture which refer by way 
of distinction to the spirit of man at death, or after it (Eccl. 
xii. 7; Acts vii. 59; Heb. xit, 23; 1 Peter aie 

Against this view, the following passages have been ursed 
as decisive; namely, Luke xvi. 23 sq.; Matt. xxii. 23 — 33 (cf. 
Luke xx. 27, 40; 2 Cor. v. 1-8). But we cannot admit them 
to be so. They may all be explained, without violence, in 
harmony with the statement made above, that the spirits of 
the departed are bodiless. 

2. That the spirits of the dcparted are conscious in the 
middle state. This may be asserted on the authority, — 

(1) Of the Old Testament.—(See Eccl. xii. 7; Prov. xv. 24; 
XXili, 14; xiv. 32; Ps. xvii. 15; lxxili. 23, 24; xl eee 
still more confidently on that, — 


Doctrine of the Last Things. 347 


(2) Of the New Testament (Luke xvi. 23 sq.; 1 Peter iii. 19; 
2 Peter i. 4:sq.; Luke xxiii. 42, 43 (cf. 2 Cor. xii. 4; Rev. ii. 
yest 2); “Acts vil. 59; Matt. viw-11; 2. Cor. v. 1-8 (cf. 
Rev. vi. 9) ; 1 Sam. xxviii. 11-20; Phil. i. 21-24). 

Objection 1. The dead are usually spoken of as asleep. 
Hence they must be unconscious. — (See 2 Sam. 7-12; Dan. 
xii. 2; 1 Thess. iv. 13-15; v.gIo). To this we reply, that 
death is called sleep by a natural figure of speech, though it 
does not involve unconsciousness. It is the bodily senses 
which are inactive in sleep; the spirit is often, if not always, 
active, and in a certain way conscious. Besides, the term 
sleep is used instead of the term death, when speaking of 
believers in Christ, because it is at once a milder term, and 
one suggestive of a resurrection. It is very rarely applied to 
the death of unbelievers, — at least, in the New Testament. 

Objection 2. A general judgment which is based, as the 
Scriptures affirm, on the conduct of men in this life, is 
scarcely compatible with moral existence in the middle state; 
for character must be greatly modified by the course pur- 
sued in that state; and it is absurd to suppose that moral 
conduct there will not be taken into account in the final 
decision. 

To this we reply (2) That the objection undertakes to set 
aside positive testimony by an appeal to difficulties, even 
though it must be admitted that human reason cannot fully 
understand the merits of the case. Such an attempt is cer- 
‘ tainly rash, and likely to lead one astray. (4) That it prob- 
ably rests on a false view of the ends to be reached by a 
general judgment; for these ends may be more numerous and 
important than any man supposes, even though the judgment 
should consist chiefly in a manifestation of the perfection of 
God’s government to all intelligent beings. (c) That it under- 
values the moral influence which the certain prospect of a 
general judgment has upon the minds of men in this life. 

3. That unbelievers are in a state of misery. This might 
be inferred from the circumstance that they are unreconciled 


348 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


to God ;.but whether their condition will be one of greatly 
increased misery, as compared with a sinful life here, can 
only be learned from the word of God. The language of that 
word, though figurative, is sufficiently clear; and one who 
believes it to be true cannot doubt the great misery of those 
who die in their sins (Luke xvi. 23 sq. (cf. Matt. xi. 23; xvi. 
18); Luke x. 15; 2 Peter ii. gq; Rev. 1. 18; vil 65 aocumapememe 
The state or place in which they are is called hades. 

4. That believers are in a state of happiness (Luke xvi. 22; 
xxill. 43; 2 Cor. v. 1-8; Phil. i. 23). The terms applied to 
their state or abode suggest that it is one of greatly advanced 
satisfaction. They are to be in Abraham’s bosom, which 
would be esteemed by any pious Jew the highest privilege. 
They are to be in paradise; and this word signified almost 
every thing delightful They are to be with the Lord, than 
which nothing could be more desired by the Christian. They 
are to be numbered and united with the spirits of just men 
made perfect; and every true believer longs to be free from 
sin. 

5. That neither believers nor unbelievers are on probation in 
that state (Luke xvi. 21 sq.; Matt. xxv. 31 sq.; 2 Cor. v. 10; 
Matt. xi. 22-24; Rom. ii. 7-9, 12). It will be noticed that 
an impassable gulf is said to separate the evil from the good 
after death; and that, in all the accounts of the judgment, the 
deeds done in the body are represented as determining the 
destiny of men. This seems to show that the eternal condi- 
tion of men depends on their conduct in the present life. All © 
that is done afterwards will be in the direction of what they 
do here. 

Against this view many protest, appealing to 1 Peter iii. 19, 
20; iv. 6. But it seems to us, on the whole, improbable that 
Peter refers to a personal visit of Christ to hades, between 
his crucifixion and resurrection, for the purpose of preaching 
to the ungodly who were there confined. It is more probable 
that he refers to the ministry of Noah, who, by the power of 
the Spirit of Christ imparted to him, preached to his unbe- 


Doctrine of the Last Things. 349 


lieving contemporaries for a hundred and twenty years, while 
the ark was building.’ 
Ill. THE SECOND ADVENT OF CHRIST. 


In this section, we are to inquire whether the return of 
Christ, spoken of in Acts i. 11, will precede or will follow 
the period of a thousand years described in Rev. xx. I sq.... 
For if it is to precede that period, the resurrection of the 
wicked will be effected at least a thousand years later than 
that of the righteous, and the judgment of the former will be 
separated by as great an interval from that of the latter. 
Moreover, if this be true, the proper reign of Christ has not 
yet begun. — : 

The question is one of much interest; and it is now attract- 
ing attention in every part of Christendom. Many of the 
ablest German and English expositors believe in the pre- 
millennial advent of Christ, as an event predicted by the 
Scriptures, and not very distant from the present time. 

But thosé who entertain this belief are divided into two 
classes. One of these classes helieves, that, at the coming of 
Christ to introduce the millennium, the righteous dead will be 
raised, the living believers changed, and ‘the wicked who are 
alive on the earth destroyed, so that Christ will reign on the 
earth with his saints in their glorified bodies a thousand 
years: then all the wicked dead will be raised and judged. 

The other class holds that the righteous dead will be 
raised, living believers changed, and yet the race be con- 
tinued by natural generation; all, or nearly all, who are born, 
being converted very early in life. In the millennium, there- 
fore, Christ will reign with his saints in their glorified bodies 
over the race of mankind in their natural bodies. 

Both classes hold that the earth will be changed or renewed 
at the coming of Christ; but the former class supposes that 
the renewal will be very complete, while the latter does not. 

1See “Baptist Quarterly,” Vol. IV. p. 486 sq.; Bib. Sac. Vol. XXXII. p. 4or 
sq.: “New Englander,” 1872, p. 601 sq.; (Expositions by the author of this 


manual, by H. Cowles, and by S. C. Bartlett); and for the opposite view a 
majority of German Expositors, 


350 Manual of Systematic Theology, 


In support of their opinion, they appeal to such passages as 
follow: Matt. xix. 28 sq.; Luke xix. 11 sq.; Acts i. 6-8, 
iii. 21; 1 Cor. xv. 23 sq.; 1 Thess. iv. 16,90 7eeeeeene 
7-10; Rev. xx. ae Of these New Testament passages, 
it may be remarked, — 

1. That the first four are too indefinite to have any valae 
as proof-texts. This must be obvious to the careful student. 

2. That the argument from 1 Cor. xv. 23 sq. has little, if 
any, force. It is said that, as a long period separates the 
resurrection of Christ from that of his people at his coming, 
so a long period may be expected to separate the resurrection 
of his people from that of the ungodly, — an argument of little 
weight. 


3. That the remaining passages, though difficult of ex- 


planation, are no sufficient basis for the doctrine in question. 
The word “resurrection” may be used figuratively in Rev. 
xx. 5. The fidelity of Christians will be like that of the 
martyrs; and they will be so numerous as to bear rule in 
the earth. Hence it will be as if all the martyrs had been 
raised at once, to people the earth for a thousand years; that 
is, an indefinite but vast period of time. As Elijah reap- 
peared in John the Baptist, so will all the martyrs in the 
faithful men of that future day. But, when this period has 


1Seiss (S.) “On the Pre-Millennial Advent of Christ”; Auberlen (C. A.) 
“The Prophecies of Daniel, and the Revelations of St. John”; Christiani (A.) 
“Darstellung des, Inhalts der Apocalypse”; Weitbrecht (Dr,) “ Christliche 
Glaubenslehre,”’ Bd. III.; Karsten (Dr.) “ Die letzten Dinge”; Luthardt (E.) 
“Von der Lehre der ietzten Dingen”; Hofman (J. C. K von) “ ‘Schiiftbeweis,” 
Bd. Il. s. 624 sq.; Brown (D.) “On the Second Advent”; Fairbairn (P.) 
“Prophecy viewed in respect to its dist. Nature, its special Function, and proper 
Interpretation,” p. 434 sq.; Brown (J. A.) “ The Second Advent, and the Creeds 
of Christendom,” Bib. Sac. 1867, p. 629 sq.; Keil (C. F.) “Zur Frage iiber den 
Chiliasmus,” Zeitschrift fiir lutherische Theologie u. Kirche, 1870, s. 639 f£.; 
Harris (S.) “The Scriptural Doctrine of the Triumph of Christ’s Kingdom dis- 
tinguished from Millennarianism,” Bib. Sac. 1873, p. 77 sq-; Cowles (H.) “On 
the Man of Sin,” 2 Thess. ii. 3, Bib. Sac. 1872, p. 623 sq.; also “On the Teach- 
ings of Christ in Regard to his then future Comings, and the Phraseology of the 
Apostles on this Subject,” Bib. Sac. 1871, p. 485 sq.; Thomasius (G.) “ Christi 
Person und Werk,” III. 2 s. 459 sq.; Kohler (Dr.) “Die Schriftwidrigkeit des 
Chiliasmus ”; Hodge (C.) “Sys. Theol.” III. 792 sq. 


Doctrine of the Last Things. 351 


elapsed, there will be great wickedness again, as if all the 
enemies and persecutors of Christ had reappeared on earth. 
This is the second resurrection, described in the following 
verses ; namely, Rev. xx. 8, 9.1 

Against the second theory of the pre-millennial advent of 
Christ may be urged the following considerations : — 

(1) It is inconsistent with the fact that the kingdom of 
Christ has already been set up. — (Acts ii. 29— 36; ili. 13, 15; 
meee, 25. v. 20, 31; Heb. x. 12, 13; Revo mi. 7—12,) 

(2) It is inconsistent with the language of Peter (2 Ep. iii. 
IO—13). For this language predicts such a dissolving of the 
earth by fire as will make it a new earth, if the new earth be 
not rather wholly distinct from it. 

(3) It is inconsistent with the passages which connect the 
second advent of Christ with the resurrection and general 
judgment (Dan. xii. 2; John v. 28, 29; Matt. xxv. 31-46; 
Rev. xx. II sq.). 

(4) It is inconsistent with those passages which represent 
the Jewish sacrifices and oe aaa as superseded by the 
work of Christ (Heb. vii. 12, 22, 24; x. 14). For the prin- 
ciple of literal Gena on which this view of the second 
advent chiefly rests requires its advocates to concede the 
resumption of Jewish sacrifices in Jerusalem. — (See. Ezek. 
xliii. 18 sq.). 


IV. THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. 


By this is meant the restoration of man to his normal con- 
dition, as a complex being, or a reunion of body and spirit. 
Our knowledge of this subject is derived entirely from the 
Scriptures, and may be comprehended in a few brief, but 
extremely important statements. 

1. There will be a resurrection of all the dead. (a) Of the 
righteous (Luke xiv. 14; xx. 34. sq.; John vi. 54; xi. 23 sq.; 
1 Cor. vi. 14; xv. 1-58; 2 Cor. iv.14; Phil. iii. 11 ; 1 Thess. iv. 
14, 15). And (4) of the wicked. John v. 28, 29; Acts xxiv. 
W5e(el, Dan. x, 2; Rev. xx. 13). 


1 See Fuller (A.) “ Works,” Vol. III. p. 29. 


3g2°%- Manual of Systematic Theology. 


In respect to the righteous, the testimony is certainly 
ample and unambiguous. If it were necessary, it could be 
increased; but every one will regard it as sufficient. 

In respect to the wicked, it is limited to ‘a few passages ; 
but these are clear. The words of Christ are entirely deci- 
sive; for it seems impossible to assign them any other mean- 
ing. Equally clear is the language of Paul before Felix. 

How this statement of the apostle is to be reconciled with 
the testimony of Josephus concerning the doctrine of the 
Pharisees’ may not be obvious, but it is conclusive as to 
Paul’s belief. 

Perhaps the Pharisees laid principal stress on the resurrec- 
tion of the just, and were all united on that point; while 
many, or even most of them held, though with less confi- 
dence, to the resurrection of the unjust also. In this case, - 
Paul could utter his own belief, as agreeing substantially with 
theirs, and could hope for their sympathy, as against the 
Sadducees. 

2. The dead will be raised at the end of the present world. 
And by the “ present world” is meant the present order of 
things which will be changed at the second coming of Christ 
(John v. 29; Matt. xxv. 46; John xi 243 Al@ie ee 
1 Cor. xv. 23, 24,52; 1 Thess. iv. 16, 17; 2) Tiesauaeg an 
2 Peter iii. 7; and perhaps Rev. xx. I1 sq.). 

Of course the believers in a premillennial advent of Christ 
teach that the resurrection of the just antedates that of the 
unjust, by the period of a thousand years; but they affirm 
that the present world, or dispensation, ends with the premil- 
lennial advent of Christ, and only postpone the resurrection 
of the wicked a thousand years. 

We have expressed our dissent from their view, and believe 
that, according to the Scriptures, all the dead will be raised 
at the same time. By the expression, “the same time,” how- 
ever, we do not mean to assert any thing in respect to the 
amount of time employed in raising the dead, or in respect to 
the exact order of this miraculous work; but only that the 


1 Antiq. XVIII. 1, 3; Wars II. 8, 14. 


Doctrine of the Last Things. 353 


Scriptures, on the whole, assign the resurrection of all to the 
same period.. It may be an instantaneous, it may be a 
gradual process. 

3. Lhe bodies raised will be real and material organisms, 
additional to the spirit (1 Cor. xv. 36, 38). Not only does the 
language of these verses point to such organisms, but the 
term “body” itself can be reasonably understood to mean 
nothing else. There are many Christians who do not under- 
stand this; but they are probably misled by the word 
“spiritual” in 1 Cor. xv. 44." 

4. Their raised bodies will be very different from their 
earthly ones (1 Cor. xv. 42-54; Phil. iii. 21; 1 Cor. vi. 13). 
It is not easy to overstate the difference between the present 
and the future bodies of the saints. The language of the 
Scriptures seems to us very strong. The present are earthy, 
corruptible, weak; the future will be celestial, incorruptible, 
glorious, rendering men like angels. 

5. Their raised bodies will be adapted to spirit-life, as their 
present bodies are to animal life.(1 Cor. xv. 44). A physical 
body is an-organ for the psyche, or animal life; a spiritual 
body is an organ for the pneuma, or rational spirit. This is 
the distinction laid down by the apostle; and it is the most 
important and comprehensive one named by him. Indeed, it 
includes all the rest, and deserves the closest study. 

6. Their raised bodies will have some connection with the 
present ones, serving at least to identify the two. .Such is 
the impression made upon our minds by the language of 
Scripture ; but whether this connection will be due to iden- 
tity in any of the particles of matter, we do not certainly 
know. In some instances, as in Christ's glorified body, we 
may affirm that identity ; but it may be going too far to affirm 


Compare Augustme “ De Civitate Dei,” XIII. 20,22. “For as spirit that 
serves flesh is called carnal, so flesh that serves spirit is called spiritual; not 
because it is converted into spirit, but because it is subject to spirit with a 
supreme and marvellous facility of obeying, having no sense of weariness, no 
liability to decay, and no tardiness of motion.” — “Surely Christian faith doubts 
not in respect to the Saviour himself, that even after his resurrection, he still, in 
spiritual but true flesh, took both food and drink with his disciples.” 


354 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


it in all, o. to find in it the identity which was in the mind of ~ 
the Spirit, when moving and guiding the sacred writers ‘n 
their work.' 

R. We have no special instruction as to the sort of bodies 
which unbelievers will possess hereafter; yet, though they 
will be immortal, it can hardly be supposed that they will be 


glorious. 
V. THE LAST JUDGMENT. 


1. There will be such a judgment under Christ (Matt. xxv. 
31 sq.; John v. 22, 27,29; Acts xvii. 31; ROM eee 
These portions of Scripture refer in plain words to a future 
judgment, and also declare that Christ will be the judge. 
Some of them appear to emphasize his human nature as in 
some way making it specially suitable for him to fill that 
office, — whether because honor should be put upon his suf- 
fering humanity, or because his human sympathy would make 
him a merciful judge, is supposed to be doubtful; but the 
former reason is suggested by the passage in John. In one 
place he is called avo, but elsewhere cvIgumoc. 

According to certain expressions of Scripture, it is thought 
that Christians will first be judged, and then take part with 
Christ in judging the wicked (Matt. xix. 28; Luke xxii. 30; 
1 Cor. vi. 2, 3 (cf. Matt. xxv. 21, 23; Luke xix. 17-19; Rom. 
v. 17; Rev. xxii. 5). It is not easy to determine the exact 
sense of these statements ; for example, whether they refer to 
the judgment itself, or to something which may precede or 


1Gouldburn (E. M.) “The Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Same Body,” 
&c.; R-own (J.) “The Resurrection of Life,” 1 Cor. xv.; “A Masterpiece and 
Model vf Exegesis,” Jour. of Sac. Lit.; Hanna (W.) “The Doctrine of the Res- 
urrection,” Discourses on 1 Cor. xv.; Edwards and Parks, “Selections from 
German Literature”; “The Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Dead,” by L. 
I. Riickert ; Bib. Sac. 1852, “The Resurrection of the Body,” by D. R. Good- 
win; Bap. Quarterly, I. pp. 385-399, “The Resurrection of the Dead,” by A. 
Hovey; Bush (Geo.) “ Anastasis: or the Doc. of a Res. of the Body rationally 
and scripturally considered”; Schdberlein (L.) “Uber das Wesen der geist- 
lichen Natur und: Leiblichkeit,” in the Jahrbiicher fiir Theologie,” VI. (1861) ; 
Hamberger (J.) ‘ Die Rationalitat des Begriffes der himmlischen Leiblichkeit,” 
in “ Jahrbiicher,” VIII. and “Die Wichtigkeit des Begriffes der himmlischea 
Leiblichkeit fiir die Theologie,” in, “ Jahrbiicher,” XII. 


Doctrine of the Last Things. 355 


follow that crisis; or whether some of them refer to one 
thing, and others to another. 

2. It willbe a general judgment. All men of all ages of 
the world will be judged (Matt. xii. 36, 37; (Eccl. xii. 14) ; 
Matt. xxv. 32’; Acts-xvii. 31; Rom. xiv. 10; 2 Cor. v. 10; 2 
Thess. i. 6-10; Rev. xx. 11 —15). 

The opinion of some that mwarra ra ¢0vm, in Matt. xxv. 32, 
refers to unbelievers exclusively —that is, to*all the nations” 
as distinguished from the elect, —is not well founded; for the 
principal arguments in favor of it are inconclusive, while 
those bearing against it are apparently conclusive. 

Three considerations are pressed : — 

(a) That the judgment of believers is described in the two 
preceding parables, from which this account differs essentially, 
and in such a way that it is complementary to them. No 
doubt this passage differs from the two parables that go be- 
fore it. It is more nearly literal in form than they. It brings 
forward the Supreme Judge at the supreme moment in lan- 
guage befitting his greatness; but it does not read like a 
third parable on the same plane as those that go before it, 
and merely intended to fill out an account begun in them. 

(2) That those on the right hand are represented as uncon- 
scious of having done any thing for Christ, while believers 
must be perfectly aware of having done many things for him. 
To this we reply, by saying that the language which Christ 
puts into the lips of his friends seems to us true to the fee/- 
ing which must be in their hearts at that time. The lan- 
guage of the judge will be a surprise. All his previous grace 
to them will not prevent grateful wonder at the marvellous 
manner in which he will identify himself with the “least of 
his brethren,’ and accept a service rendered to them as 
rendered truly to him. 

(c) That believers are not to be judged with the rest of 
mankind, but are to take part with Christ in judging them. 
This is indeed true; at least, according to the most obvious 
sense of several passages; but the language of Christ in 
Matt. xxv. 31 sq. represents believers as judged before others; 


356 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


and it is difficult to see why their own acceptance should 
interfere in the least with their pater in the subse- 
quent act of judging unbelievers. 

Against this interpretation, three facts may be urged; (1) 
That, according to verse 34, those on the right hand must be 
the elect; for they are invited by the judge to “inherit the 
kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the 
world;” and it is evident that the kingdom referred to’was 
prepared for God’s chosen people (cf. John xiv. 2). 

(2) That according to vv. 35-40, those on the right hand 
must have befriended Christians as the followers of Jesus. 
Any other view of the Saviour’s words will be found unsatis- 
factory... They are plainly parallel to his saying in Matt. x. 
40-42, “ He that receiveth you receiveth me; and he that 
receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. He that receiveth ~ 
a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s 
reward ; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of 
a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward” (cf. 
Mark ix. 41, 42). 

(3) That, according to vv. 43-45, those on the left were 
not heathen men, but persons who lived where there were 
Christians whom they knew to be followers of Jesus, and in 
need of their assistance. 

Meyer goes to the opposite extreme, and holds that only 
those who profess to be followers of Christ are meant by “all 
the nations.”” (a) Because the decision respecting each class 
depends on the disposition manifested towards Jesus Christ, 
or, in other words, on love instead of faith. But there is no 
force in this circumstance; for faith and love are inseparable. 
Faith works by love; and, if faith is revealed in the conduct 
of life, it will be revealed, for the most part, by the exercise 
of love. 

(4) Because those who are judged are represented collect- 
ively as the flock of Christ; for an oriental flock usually com- 
prises both sheep and goats. To this it may be answered, 
first, that-Christ as mediator is in a certain sense the head 
and shepherd of all mankind; and, secondly, that the descrip- 


Doctrine of the Last Things. . 57 


tion of the judgment here given introduces Christ as king, 
and brings forward the figure of a shepherd and his flock to 
illustrate but a-single point, —the separation of one class 
from the other. 

(c) Because the subjects to be judged are designated “all 
the nations” ; and Christianity will be universal at the time of 
the Parousia. In response to this, it may be remarked, that 
thefe is no sufficient evidence of the universal prevalence of 
Christianity at the time of Christ’s second coming; indeed, 
many expressions of the sacred writers are apparently incon- 
sistent with the view, that all nations will then be nominally 
Christian. But if they are all nominally Christian, can we 
suppose that they alone will be judged? Must we conclude 
that the generations of the dead are overlooked, because the 
word “nations” is used? Are they no part of “all the 
nations,” when one speaks of the coming of Christ ?— (cf. 
1 Thess. iv. 13—17; 2 Thess. i. 6—10; 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52; 
John v. 28, 29.) 

3. Lt will bea righteous judgment. (Acts xvii. 31; Rom. 
ii. 6; 2 Cor. v. 10; Gal. vi. 7—10; Eph. vi. 8; Rev. ii. 23; 
XX. 12; xxii. 12 sq.) This fact should be frequently and 
earnestly asserted, when the last judgment is referred to. It 
should be urged with all possible emphasis, as a first truth of 
Christianity, that no man will be wronged in the least by the 
final sentence, — that every one will be sent to his own place. 
The final day will bring a revelation of the righteous judg- 
ment of God, and will thus render it forever impossible for 
the good to doubt his righteousness, or be troubled at the 
dark features of his providence. Such a judgment, vindi- 
cating the ways of God to men, and setting plainly before 
them the wonders of his holiness and grace, can cnly be 
effected at the end of the world. 

‘ Michel Angelo’s fresco of the Last Judgment in the Sis- 
tine Chapel is a failure at just this point; for it represents 
the judge as a being of dreadful decision and force, but gives 
no impression of what John Bunyan calls the “equitable- 
ness,” and “excellent righteousness,” which will make even 


358 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


the lost “conclude that there is all the reason in the world” 
why “they should be shut out of heaven.” It gives ne 


impression of either holiness or tenderness in “the Son of - 


Man.” Many have looked upon this as a grave defect in that 
powerful work. 

Yet the language of Dr. Lillie on Peter is in accord with 
the Sistine fresco. “The man that meets his descending 
judge, unreconciled and alienated from the life and love of 
God, shall be hurried forth by whirlwinds to a waste, howling 
wilderness, —a dry, parched land where no water is— where 
no light of the sun nor of the stars appears; where no sleep 
refreshes, and hope never comes: but, as the blighted soul 
wanders on through eternity, the only memorial of the exist- 
ence of Him who is Almighty will be the ever-thickening 
reverberations, bursting all around its path, of that voice of 
doom, ‘Depart from me!’” (“Lectures on the Epistles of 
Peter,” p. 236.) 

4. It will follow after the resurrection of the dead. This 
must be the case, if there is to be a general judgment at all ; 
and it seems to be a natural inference from the several pas- 
sages of the New Testament which refer to the resurrection 
and the judgment. — (See Rev. xx. 12 sq.) 


VI. THE FINAL STATE OF UNBELIEVERS. 


On this subject, the Bible teaches, — 

1. That the state in question begins directly after the last 
judgment (Matt. xxv. 41, 46; Rev. xx. 10-15; Rom. ii. 
5—16). It does not seem possible to find in these passages 
any other sense than the one adopted in our statement. The 
very idea of such a judgment carries with it retribution as its 
consequence, and without any further offer of pardon. 

2. That it continues the same in kind forever. Matt. xxv. 
46; Mark ix. 43-48; Rev. xx. 10,15; xxii. 11, 15 (cf. Matt. 
xii. 32; xxvi. 24; Luke xvi. 26; John viii. 21; 1 John v. 16). 
According to the passage in Luke, a gulf of some kind sepa- 
rates the unbelieving from believers in the middle state; and 
that gulf is for some reason impassable: much more, then, 


Doctrine of the Last Things. 359 


will the good and the bad be separated by an impassable a 
after the last day.’ 

3. That in it the wicked will be conscious of great misery 
Bam. xii. 2; Matt. xxv. 46; Mark ix. 43-48; Rev. .xx 
Rens; Xxt. 8; xxii. 15 (ck Matt. xxil: 13; xxv. 30). 

What Bishop Butler remarked in the last century is no 
less true in this; namely, “There is, in the present age, a 
certain fearlessness with regard to what may be hercafter 
under the government of God, which nothing but a univer- 
sally acknowledged demonstration on the side of atheism can 
justify ; and which makes it quite necessary that men be 
reminded, and, if possible, made to feel, that there is no sort 
of ground for being’ thus presumptuous, even upon the most 
sceptical principles.” — (“ Analogy,’ Part I. ch. II). Hence 
the necessity of bringing forward distinctly God’s word on 
this point. 

And, though the language employed by the sacred writers 
is figurative, and cannot therefore be used to prove the sind 
of suffering which the wicked will endure hereafter, it must 
be presumed to give us some just idea of its greatness and 
dreadfulness ; it must be fitted to awaken in our souls such a 
dread as the reality ought to awaken, and would awaken, if 
we had a proper conception of it. 

4.. That some of the wicked will suffer greater puntsh- 
ment than others (Luke xii. 47, 48; Matt. xi. 21-24; Heb. 
x. 29). In this statement, we assume (a) That some un- 
believers in Christ are more guilty than others, since they 
have rejected him in the face of clearer light, and therefore 


1 Whiton (J. M.) “Is Eternal Punishment Endless?” Stuart (M.) “ Essays on 
Future Punishment”; Erbkam (H.) “ Ueber die Lehre von der ewigen Verdamm- 
niss ein dogmatische Versuch,” St. u. Kr. 1838, s. 384 ff.; Thompson (J. P.) 
“Love and Penalty”; Long (C.) “Objections from Reason against the Endless 
Punishment of the Wicked ”; Hovey (A.) “State of the Impenitent Dead”; 
Dexter (H. M.) “ The Verdict ai Reason,” &c.; Bartlett (S. C.) “ Life and Death 
Eternal”; Parker (J.) “Ecce Deus,” ch. XIV.; Iloppin (J. M.) “The Future 
State,” Bib. Sac. XV. p. 381 sq.; Barrows (E. P.) “ The Scriptural Doctrine of 
a Future State,” Bib. Sac. XV. p. 625 sq.; Alger (W. R.) “ History of the Doc- 
trine of a Future Life,” passim ; Jackson (Wm.) “ The Doctrine of Retribution "; 
Schaff (P.) “ Die Siinde wider den heiligen Geist.” 


360 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


with greater opposition to the revealed character of God. 
\(0) That retribution in the final state will be strictly just, — 
no one suffering a particle of anguish | more than he ought to 
suffer. 

But it is to be borne in mind, that sin, as well as suffering 
for sin, may be eternal;' and it is not impossible that some 
who have hated God less than others in this life may over- 
take in wickedness their more guilty companions hereafter. 
If so, their misery will surely equal that of their companions ; 
for no one’s accountability will come to an end at the last day. 
Moral beings must be forever under obligation to do perfectly 
the will of God; for that will is holy: and, if they refuse to do 
it, they must forever experience the reproach of conscience 
for their refusal. 

This view of the case seems to imply, that the misery of the 
lost will increase from zon to zon; and it must be conceded 
that all we know of the human soul and of divine righteous- 
ness points to such an increase. But just what will be the 
result of sin and of woe in the final state, no one of the 
sacred writers has informed us. Whether the wicked will 
always seek for more knowledge, or rather as far as possible 
shun the light, can only be conjectured. Preferring to 
remain the enemies of God, they may nevertheless despair 
of improving their condition, and so make no effort to enter 
new fields of thought. A sense of shame and of guilt may 
brood over them, and turn their attention to the past rather 
than to the future. Opportunities to do evil, except in 
thought, may be cut off, and their minds be chiefly occupied 
with what they “might have been,’ — with what they have 
lost, and with the conviction that they have no excuse for 
their sin and folly. : 

Objections are often urged against the doctrine of endless 


1 Mark iii. 29, Alford translates, “but is guilty of eternal sin”; which may 
signify sin that will never end,—sin that sets the soul forever against God, 
and which grace will never reach. 

2 Cheever (G. B.) “The Powers of the World to Come,” Bibl. Repository and 
Class. Rev. 3d. Series, Vol. V. pp. 651-668; Vol. VI. pp. 75-99; 457- 4743 
and Bib. Sac. Vol. VIII. pp. 471-491. 


Doctrine of the Last Things. 361 


punishment, as being inconsistent with the justice and good- 
ness of God. These objections are so stated as to seem very 
conclusive ; but, in reply to them, it may be said, — 

(a) That, while the moral judgment of man is able to 
approve right action, and condemn wrong action, it does not 
pretend to know the amount of punishment which the latter 
deserves. : 

(4) That conscience is of such a nature that it must forever 
condemn any act of sin; and, therefore, unless that act of 
sin be repented of, and forgiven, or the moral constitution of 
man be destroyed, the sinner must forever experience remorse 
of conscience. He may say, “Evil, be thou my good;” but 
he will never cease to know that he sins in doing this. 


“So I sit alone with my conscience 
In the place where the years increase ; 
And I try to remember the future 
In the land where time will cease. 


“ And I know of the future judgment, 
How dreadful soe’er it be, 
That to sit alone with my conscience, 
Will be judgment enough for me.” 
— Charles W. Stubbs. 
But, to be more specific, we remark, — 

(c) That impenitence for sin is sin, and must be condemned 
by conscience as long as this impenitence continues. The 
same is likewise true of want of love to God, which inevitably 
passes over into hatred of God; while hatred of God is hatred 
of holiness, and must be forever recognized by the moral’ 
nature of man as wrong and without excuse. If impenitence 
coutinué, punishment will continue; for it is involved in the 
constitution of the soul: so of hatred to God, and punish- 
ment for the same. 

(2) That there is no ground for a belief, that, after the last 
judgment, any one will repent. This is said (1) Because the 
will of man tends to act in the same moral direction which it 
has become accustomed to follow. Thus, in a certain sense, 
man becomes more and more the servant of sin the longer he 


362 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


continues in sin. (2) Because punishment appears to have 
very little, if any tendency, to work reformation in offenders. 
It often deters from crime, but it rarcly brings one to genuine 
repentance. (3) That during the middle state, if at any time 
after this life, a return to God might be expected; yet the 
language of Scripture does not permit us to expect it then 
(Luke xvi. 26). 


VU. THE FINAL STATE OF BELIEVERS. 


A glimpse of what that state will be is afforded us by such 
texts as the following (Matt. xxv. 46; John v. 29; 1 Cor. 
xv. §1 sq.; 1 Thess. iv. 16-18; 2 Thess. i. 6—10; 2 Tim. iv. 
8; Rev. xxi. 1 sq.). From these portions of Holy Writ, how- 
ever figurative they may be, we may safely conclude : —* 

1. That this state begins directly after the last judgment 
On this point we suppose there is no disagreement among 
Christians, certainly none among Protestant Christians. 
The Papal church ought to place the last judgment long 
after the end of the world, that the souls of the pious dead 
may escape from purgatory before it; or else to remand some 
of the pious to purgatory for a time after the judgment. 

2. That it continues the same in kind forever. “Ibi esse 
nostrum non habebit mortem, ibi nosse nostrum non habebit 


errorem, ibi amare nostrum non habebit offensionem.”— 


(Augustine De Cir. Dei, xi. 28.) Let such a state be endless, 
and it is heaven. The immutability of the saints in holiness 
and blessedness is perfectly consistent with the very highest 
degree of moral freedom and activity. To do the will of God 
will be their supreme delight, and their growing knowledge = 
his ways will be a source a unfailing joy. 

3. That in it believers will enjoy perfect blessedness. To 
use the language-of Roger Williams, in that final state 
believers will enjoy forever “the holy and sweet presence of 


1See also Mant (R.) “ The Happiness of the Blessed”; ; Baxter (R.) “The 
Saints’ Everlasting Rest”; Bonar (H.) “The Eternal Day” ; Ilarbaugh (E1.) 
“ Heaven,” &c., 3 vols.; Dick (T.) ‘The Philosophy of a Future State”; Tay- 
lor (I.) “ Physical Theory of a Future Life.” 


Doctrine of the Last Things. 363 


the Father of lights.” Just how this presence will be mani- 
fested, we cannot tell. The “ beatific vision” of God is now 
inconceivable. 

Yet something is meant by “seeing as we are seen, and 
knowing as we are known” (1 Cor. xiii. 12). And it is quite 
credible that the nature of God may be as clearly revealed to 
our spiritual eye hereafter as the nature of any material 
object is revealed to the eye of sense here. Says Bishop 
Pearson, “Invisibilitas essentiz divine non tollit clarem 
visionem intellectualem in statu supernaturali,’ quoted by 
Ellicott, on 1 Tim. vi. 16. This, at least, may be confidently 
affirmed, that the blessed and glorified Redeemer will be an 
object of direct vision and of perfect beauty. 

“ Now just as the gates were opened to let in the men, I 
looked in after them, and, behold, the city shone like the sun. 
The streets also were paved with gold; and in them walked 
many men, with crowns on their heads, palms in their hands, 
and golden harps to sing praises withal. 

“There were also of them that had wings; and they 
answered one another without intermission, saying, ‘ Holy, 
holy, holy, is the Lord’ (Rev. iv. 8). And after that, they shut 
up the gates; which, when I had seen, I wished. myself among 
them.” —“ And there shalt thou, oh my mansoul! have such 
communion with me, with my Father, and with your Lord 
Secretary, as is not possible here to be enjoyed.” — (Bunyan.) 

4. That this blessedness will be proportioned to their fidelity 
on earth (Dan. xii. 3; Rom. ii. 6, 7; Phil. iv. 1; 1 Thess. ii. 
19, 20). It might be enough to say, that the quality and 
degree of their blessedness will depend in some measure on 
their fidelity in this life; for this may not be the only thing 
that will affect that blessedness: original capacity may have 
something to do with it. A knowledge of human sinfulness 
and divine grace, due to the providence of God rather than to 
personal service, may have much to do with it; but holy 
_ living amid the trials of earth will surely augment the bliss of 
those who have washed their robes and made them white in 
the blood of the Lamb. 


364 Manual of Systematic Theology. 


5. That this blessedness will be forever increasing. For 
the soul will be restored to its normal condition, ever adding 
to its knowledge, and thereby to its happiness. 


“She recommenced: We from the greatest body 
Have issued to the heaven that is pure light, — 
Light intellectual replete with love, 
Love of true good replete with ecstacy, 
Ecstacy that transcendeth every sweetness.” 
— Dante, Paradiso, xxx. 38 sq. 


“CHRISTIAN ETHICS. 


. 
i 
— 
‘ 
. 
; 
, 
* 
a . 2 
5 
( 4 
.. S : 
- chet 
a 
‘ . j 


CHRISTIAN ETHICS. 


INTRODUCTION. 


CHRISTIAN ethics is the science of Christian conduct, the 
latter expression being used in its broadest sense. The term 
“ethics” is thus synonymous with “ morals,” “ morality,” or 
“moral philosophy.” 

This science is founded on the moral teachings of the 
Bible, illustrated by the life of Jesus Christ. 

The New Testament is naturally the best guide to Chris- 
tian conduct for men of all nations and times; but the Old 
Testament reveals, in its own way, the essential principles of 
morality, though modified in their application by the char- 
acter of the Jewish theocracy. 

In the order of logical study, Christian ethics must follow 
Christian theology. For, theology treats of God and his 
grace, while Christian ethics treats of man under the influ- 
ence of that grace; the former deals with the Giver and the 
giving of true moral life; the latter with the growth and 
expression of that life. 

The various theories of moral science differ from one 
another primarily in respect to the original ground or prin- 
ciple of right; that is, the reason — back of which we cannot 
go—why any act or feeling is to be considered right or 
wrong. Hence a brief discussion of this point is necessary. 

For assuming that the manner of life enjoined by the 
Scriptures, and illustrated by Christ is right, we may still ask, 
Why is it right? Is such a life right in view of its end; that 
is, because it tends to something good other than right char- 
acter or conduct, and will issue in that good? Or is it right 


in view of itself; that is, because it is good and desirable per 
367 


368 Christian Ethics. 


se? And; if it be pronounced good in itself, can we say that 
it is good independently of the actual nature of God, and the 
actual constitution of the universe ? 

For different answers to these questions, see the works 
mentioned below :* — } 

Without stopping to criticise other views, it is enough for 
our purpose to say that the Scriptures seem to make the 
moral nature of God the original ground of right. For, — 

1. They propose the holiness of God as an all-sufficient 
reason why men should be holy. And it is quite noteworthy, 
that, when his holiness is appealed to as an argument for 
holiness in man, no other reason is added (Lev. xi. 44, 45 ; 
xix. 2; xx. 7, 26; Matt. v. 48; 1 Peter 1. 14—16;0aleonGeme 
26, 27; Eph, iv..24; Col, i. 105 2 Peter ae 

2. They enjoin upon men the duty of supreme love to 
God. Here again it is noteworthy, that the duty of honoring 
abstract right, eternal order, or natural law is never urged 
by them as tantamount to honoring God (Deut. x. 12; xi. I, 
13, 22; xix. Q; xxx. 6; Matt. xxii 37; Luke x27 sane 
2/5 DV, TON OMy1. 015,120). 

3. They represent Christ as absorbed in doing joyfully 
the will of God. His language and bearing carry our minds 
up to God the Father as a person; and not to God, and the 
immutable right, as something beside him (John iv. 34; viii. 
29; xv. 10; Matt. xi. 25; Luke x21; Hebi 

These three classes of passages favor the view that the 
moral nature of God, which finds expression in his will, is 


1 Wardlaw (R.) “Christian Ethics,” &c.; Mackintosh (Sir James) “ A Gen- 
eral View of the Progress of Ethical Philosophy,” &c.; Whewell (Wm.) “ Lec- 
tures on the History of Moral Philosophy in England,” &c.; Joufiroy (Theo.) 
“Tntroduction to Ethics,” &c.; Lecky (W. E. H.) “History of European 
Morals,” &c., ch. I.; Hopkins (M.) “ Lectures on Moral Science”; also “The . 
Law of Love, and Love as Law”; Butler (Bp. Jos.) “Sermons upon Human 
Nature”; Wayland (F.) “ Moral Science”; Hickok (L. P.) “Moral Science ”; 
Alexander (A.) “ Outlines of Moral Science ”; Haven (J.) ‘“‘ Moral Philosophy”; 
Harless (C. A.) “System of Christian Ethics” ; Cobbe (Miss F. P.) “Studies 
New and Old,” &c.; Martineau (Jas.) “Studies of Christianity,” p. 299 seg. ; 
Calderwood (HH.) “Ilandbook of Moral Philosophy”; Blackie (J. S.) “Four 
Phases of Morals”; Rothe (R.) “ Theologische Ethik.” 7 


Introduction. 369 


ultimate, — the proper and original ground of right; and this 
view is certainly in accord with the general tone and spirit of 
the sacred writers. 

But it is sometimes objected that men have a natural intui- 
tion of the right, and recognize it as something independent 
of God (Rom. ii. 14, 15 ; Luke xii. 57). 

Our reply is (1) that the power of moral intuition is from 
God, and is one of the means by which he reveals to us what 
is approved by himself; (2) that as men often know phe- 
nomena or effects without knowing their cause, so they may 
perceive the existence of a law without recognizing the law- 
giver. But as the question is one of some difficulty, as well 
as importance, we can afford to look at it a little longer. 

In doing this, we begin with the words of Secretan; | 
namely, “The distinction of good and evil has been estab- 
lished by the divine will. To suppose mora! order pre-ex- 
istent and supreme would be to make moral order God. To 
suppose them eternally simultaneous would be to divide the 
sovereignty of the universe between abstract law and the 
Being consenting to it.’ The last two of these sentences 
appear to us correct statements. — (See also the “Office of 
Law,” by the Rev. L. B. Tefft, in “ The Baptist Quarterly,” 
II. p. 476 seg.) 

We regard the nature of God as the one fous naturarum., 
the absolutely original and sole reality, beyond which we 
should never seek to go in thought. But, since God has 
made men in his own image, they see that which he approves 
to be right, and cannot, without destroying their own nature, 
see otherwise. Yet this remark applies only to principles, 
and not to their various applications. 

We do not, however, suppose that moral right, and moral 
‘law, its expression, are related to the consciousness of God 
just as they are to our consciousness. The moral law is a 
free expression of his will to others, and therefore in the 
fullest and strictest sense it is from him, under him, depen- 
dent on him, and immutable only as he is immutable ; while 
the same law comes down upon us from his mind and will, 


370 Christian Ethics. 


imposing itself on our consciences, and therefore is over us, 
and independent of us. 

But it is important to bear in mind always, that we are so 
constituted that what the law enjoins we look upon as in its 
own nature good and right, and therefore fit tc be enjoined. 
Hence we do not believe that the law has made right to 
be right, but has only expressed it as such; nor could it be 
different, and yet be right, any more than God could be 
different and still be God. 

Yet we do not know whether it is, or is not, logically con- 
ceivable, that the nature of God might have been different 
from what it is, approving what it now disapproves, and dis- 
approving what it approves. But, if it had been so, it is plain 
that we, having been made in his image, must have regarded 
that as good and right which we now look upon as evil and 
wrong. ‘That is to say,a morally different Creator would have 
insured a morally different creation. This is self-evident. 

Whether it would have been as good as the actual one, we 
cannot tell; for our faculties are utterly incompetent to judge 
or even conceive of it in any definite way. We must see 
with the moral eye which God has given us; must see facts 
and laws and principles as they are, the moral universe as iz 
zs. And, being ourselves a part of the moral universe as it 
is, we cannot but regard God and his moral law as perfect 
and immutable. 

It may be added briefly, that we hold, — 

(1) With Hickok, that whatever is right is worthy of man’s 
spirituai nature ; but against him we say, it is worthy of that 
nature because it is right, and not right because it is worthy 
of that nature. ‘ 

(2) With Brown, that whatever is right excites a peculiar 
feelmg in us, namely, that of approbation; but against him 
we say, that this feeling is due to a judgment or cognition of 
the richtness of the act, instead of the judgment being due 
to the feeling. (Dabney (R. L.) “The Sensualistic Philoso- 
phy of the Nineteenth Century,” p. 91.) 

(3) WitheDwight, that whatever is right is conducive to the 
greatest good; but against him, that under God, and by his 
providence, it is conducive to the greatest good because it 1s 


Introduction. 371 


right, and not right simply because it is conducive to the 
greatest good. 

(4) With Price, that whatever is right comports with the 
nature and fitness of things; but against him, that the very 
nature and fitness of things are due to the action of God, and 
express his will, instead of his nature and will being due to 
the fitness of things. 

(5) With Paley, that whatever is right is required by the 
will of God; but against him, that God’s will expresses an 
unchangeable and rational nature, — the source of our own. 

(6) With Paley, that whatever is right is useful to us; but 
against him, that it is not right simply because it is useful to 
us, but under God it is useful to us because it is right. 

Having ascertained from the Scriptures the original ground 
of right and wrong, our next step is to find the supreme rule 
of right. And this, if we are correct as to the ground, 
must be the revealed will of God,— a will revealed partly by 
nature, and more fully by the sacred record. In support of 
this statement, we may appeal, — ; 

(1) To the common judgment of Christians. For there are 
very few points on which they are better agreed than on 
this, — that the will of God is the rule of right. 

(2) To the general consent of ethical writers. For most of 
these writers distinctly admit the truth of our statement. 

(3) To the testimony of God’s word. This appears to be 
very plain and consistent from first to last. — (See, for exam- 
Wem Marien. 25 Luke xxii, 42; Acts. xxi. 14; Ps. i: 2; 
Cx. Mie) Kom, vil, LO—12; ix. 20 seg:; 1 John im: 4, 205, 
t Cor, iv. 3, 4; Acts xxvi. g—11; also 1 Cor. xv. 9; Eph. iii. 
8; John xii. 28). 

the will of God as to Christian duty zs revealed in 
nature, — 

(1) By the original testimony of conscience to fhe existence 
of a moral quality in human conduct, and of man’s duty to be 
and to do right. This testimony assures every man, also, 
that he ought to seek light in regard to his duty from every 
source open to him; and the Saviour has taught us why it is 


372 Christian Ethics. 


unheeded (John iii. 19, 20). Without it, however, the igno- 
rant might remain ignorant, in many instances at least, and 
yet be blameless. 

Says Pres. Chadbourne (“Instinct in Animals and Men,” p. 
264), “ While obligation must have light from the compre- 
hending power, it does not wait for that light to come, or not, 
as some lower impulse may determine; but with royal voice 
it demands more light every instant of time; it demands all 
the light the comprehending power can give; it will be satis- 
fied with nothing less; and it increases its demands as the 
capacity of the comprehending power increases, when used in 
the best manner possible. Can any thing be more beautiful 
than this double action of obligation in the system of means? 
It does not make man a perfect being, as to knowledge; but 
it is beautiful as the means of constant progress toward per- 
fection. There is resting upon man, evermore, the obligation 
to do right, and to secure knowledge that he may know what 
is right.” — (See also Rom. ii. 14, 15, the classic passage on 
this point; and Hofmann, “ Die Lehre von dem Gewissen.”) 

Yet it must be admitted that conscience affords by itself 
but little ethical knowledge; namely, that there is a moral 
quality in conduct, that man ought to do right and be right, 
and that he is bound to seek the knowledge whee assist 
him to do right. 

(2) By the working of natural sympathies and impulses, 
For these sympathies, when normal, indicate the will of God, 
and can therefore be used as sources of light to moral judg- 
ment. The conjugal, parental, and filial instincts may be 
named as the most important in this respect. Yet these 
affections and sympathies teach but little perfectly; for sin 
has marred their character, and thereby diminished the clear- 
ness and fulness of their testimony. 

(3) By the relations which God has established between 

-living beings. These relations may be studied as they exist 
in families and nations; indeed, wherever living beings of any 
race have any thing to do with one another. But the knowl- 
edge thus attainable is obscured by the complexity of the 


Introduction. 373 


relations to be studied, and the disturbance which they have 
suffered from sin. 

The will of God is also revealed in the Scriptures, — 

(1) By a clear statement of moral principles. These prin- 
ciples are so comprehensive, that, when properly applied, they 
always guide the inquirer in the way of duty. 

(2) By special rules, showing the application of said princi- 
ples in particular instances. 

(3) By the life of Christ, the one example of perfect con- 
duct among men. This is perhaps the most important source 
of ethical truth in the Scriptures. 

Thus, in a very simple manner, the sacred record rectifies, 
completes, and confirms the knowledge derivable from other 
sources, and proves itself to be an inexhaustible fountain of 
ethical light or truth. 

The sources of ethical knowledge seem, therefore, to be 
ample; yet in no man on earth is this knowledge perfect, — 

(1) Because no man seeks it with a zeal proportioned to its 
importance. Sin has weakened our desire to know the will 
of God. 

(2) Because no man has moral powers unimpaired by sin. 
Evil propensities have warped the moral judgment, and led 
to imperfect views of truth and duty. 

(3) Because many of our race have not the Holy Scrip- 
tures, but only the light of nature. 

This imperfection of ethical knowledge has doubtless to 
some extent an unfavorable bearing on the conduct of Chris- 
tians (1 John iii. 2; and comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 12; 2 Cor. ili. 18; 
Phu. 1. 10). Hence they should seek to acquaint themselves 
with the principles of Christian morality. 

The imperfection of their ethical knowledge affects the 
form, rather than the substance, of the conduct of unbelievers 
(Rom. i. 18-32; vii. 8; Gal. ili. 10). 

Imperfection of ethical knowledge can modify one’s respon- 
sibility for his conduct only in so far as the former is due to 
causes beyond his control (John iii. 19, 20; Rom. i. 28). For 
instance, a man who in a fit of drunkenness kills a neighbor 


374 Christian Ethics. 


may be-guilty of murder, though a part of his guilt belongs to 
the act of drinking. 

But, as due to causes beyond his control, no man’s igno 
-rance of duty is so complete as to destroy his responsibility 
for evil conduct.-— (See Luke xii. 48; John ix. 41; Rom. i. 19 
Seg.; ll. 15 seg.; Acts xxvi. 9; comp. I Cor. xv. 9.) Yet in 
so far as it is due to such causes, it diminishes his guilt in the 
sight of God (Matt. xx. 20-24; Luke xii. 47, 48; John iii. 
IQ; xv. 22, 24; Rom. ii. 125 iv. 15; Vv. 135) 20a 
James iv. 17.) 

Finally, the grand distinction of Christian conduct is this: 
it is rooted in faith, and sustained by divine grace. Faith 
works by love. The former receives; the latter gives. The 
former sustains; the latter acts. Moreover, gratitude for 
love quickens returning love (2 Cor. v. 14; I John iv. 19). 
Hence the possibility of a gradual transition from sin to 
holiness. 

“ Gradual,’ we say, because if we reason from the con- 
scious experience of believers, this change seems to be thus © 
effected in a majority of instances, because it is represented 
in the New Testament as a growth in the grace and knowl- 
edge of Christ, as a progress from childhood to maturity, as a 
renewal of the inner man from day to day, as a transforma- 
tion from glory to glory into the image of Christ, as a race 
and a conflict, and because we are assured that all things 
work together for good to them that love God; a statement 
which appears to be true of every Christian, though it is cer- 
tain that the conscious progress of some is so slow as to be 
imperceptible, except at long intervals. 

In the further study of Christian ethics, the works named 
below may be consulted :*— : 

1 Harless (G. C. A.) “ Christian Ethics”; Schmid (C. F.) “ Christliche Sitten- 
lehre ”; Martensen, “Christian Ethics” ; Wuttke (Adolf) “Christian Ethics”, 
Rothe (R.) “Theologische Ethik”; Wardlaw (R.) “Christian Ethics”; Sarto- 
rius (E.) “ Die Lehre von der heiligen Liebe”; Row (C. A.) “Moral Teaching 
ot the New Testament”’; Wilkins (A. S.) “The Light of the World”; Luthardt 


(C. E.) “The Moral Truths of Christianity”; Dale (R. W.) “The Ten Com 
mandments ” ; Gregory (D. S.) “Christian Ethics.” 


Conduct with Reference to God. 375 


CHAPTER I. 
CHRISTIAN CONDUCT WITH REFERENCE TO GOD. 


Tue leading passages of Scripture bearing upon this topic 
may be gathered into three groups, namely :— 

(1) Deut. x. 12, 13; Matt. xxii. 37; Luke x. 27. 

(2) 1 Cor. x. 31; 1 John v. 2, 3; John xiv. 23; xv. 10, 14 

(3) Eph. vi. 18; Phil. iv. 6; Col. iv. 2; 1 Thess. v. 16; 1 
Tim. ii. 8. 

The firsz of these groups evidently requires of Christians a 
love to God commensurate witn the utmost natural power of 
man to love. This love comprises in itself (1) a clear view of 
God's moral perfection; (2) a profound admiration of his char- 
acter; (3) a peculiar delight in his presence; and (4) a high 
regard for his honor. The Saviour makes all our duties to 
God depend upon love, because love will lead us to perform 
them all; or, better perhaps, because it is the condition of 
their performance. Without it, conscience dictates in vain ; 
with it, conscience always rules the will. 

The second group requires of Christians not only a reverent 
obedience to the commands of God, but a purpose to honor 
him by all their conduct. Is the latter practicable? We 
reply, that the honor of God may be the ruling motive of 
every action, though the mind does not always have that end 
consciously in view. 

For (1) a series of actions is often embraced in a single 
purpose; and the right doing of those acts may at times 
absorb the mind, so that the end sought by them all is lost 
sight of. Yet the one ruling purpose may pervade the whole 
series, and give character to it all. Nay, it is possible that 
the mind may have consciously in view a great end, and be 
moved by a deep love, without being distinctly conscious of 
its own state; and in certain circumstances this may be the 
very highest kind of Christian action. 


376 Christian Ethics. 


And (2) many-duties are so unquestionable, and constantly 
recurring, that they may be performed as a matter of course, 
without a thought of the supreme end. Of this character are 
numberless social and domestic duties. Perhaps, however, it 
would be right and easy to connect them more frequently in 
thought with God, who has established our social and domes- 
tic relations. 

The whole spirit and bearing of Oliver Cromwell are said 
to have risen with his advancement to higher stations of 
power and trust. Charles Sumner is supposed by some to 
have never lost for a moment the feeling that he was a sena- 
tor of the United States. A poor German wood-sawyer 
arrested the attention of a young Jewish scholar by the noble 
and happy expression of his countenance while engaged in 
his work; and when asked to explain it, replied, “I am a 
King’s son.” He was a Christian who rejoiced in the privi- 
lege of adoption. 

While, then, the requirement that we should always act . 
with reference to the honor of God is not unreasonable, it is 
exceedingly comprehensive; and no Christian in this life does 
more than advance towards a fulfilment of it. 

The Just group enjoins upon the followers of Christ 
unceasing worship or prayer. Is this possible? Certainly 
not as an outward service, and probably not as a form of con- 
scious mental action. Yet, in a certain intelligible sense, the 
whole life may be, in the words of Origen, “one connected 
prayer”; but only if the word “prayer” is understood to 
include praise, and giving of thanks, as well as petition and 
states of heart, half-conscious, as well as separate acts. As 
every Christian knows, there is a tone of thought and feeling 
which may be characterized as devout and prayerful, —a per- 
petual uplooking and uprising of the soul to God,— which do 
not interfere with any duty to man, All this may be called 
prayer, and associated with what has been said in the outlines 
of secret prayer. 

But Christian conduct embraces the duty of public or social, 
as well as of secret worship. And public worship should be 


Conduct with Reference to God. BY), 


simple, direct, earnest, and reverent. In the strictly devo- 
tional parts of such worship,—that is, in prayer and sing- 
ing, — God himself should be the chief object of thought. 
The spirit should be turned fervently to him; and, if it is, the 
worship will be such as we have described, for no other will 
satisfy the worshipper. “The most eloquent prayer,’ &c., 
would be unnatural, — (See Matt. vi. 5, 6.) 

One who leads in social prayer should never address others 
through God, or choose his language. to God with a view to 
convince or impress men; for this would be irreverent. 
Prayer to God is always primarily and chiefly for his ear. 
Hence the special danger in one feature of the woman’s cru- 
sade against intemperance. It must be very difficult, though 
perhaps not impossible, to pray in presence of the rumseller, 
without thinking much of the effect of the prayer itself upon 
his conscience, instead of looking simply to God for help. 
Prayer wth a stubborn child is for the same reason difficult. 

Again, it is quite true that genuine worship by prayer and 
song quickens the spiritual life of those who engage in it; 
but this is a result, —not the end consciously sought. The 
proximate end of praise is the honor of God ; and the proxi- 
mate end of petition is the blessing of God, — his interposi- 
tion in some way for the suppliant, or for others. Hence, if 
prayer is to be sincere, and the best exercise of holy affec- 
tions, it must not be offered for the sake of the benefit which 
there is in this exercise; it must not terminate in itself, but 
in Goc ; the improvement of holy affection by prayer must 
be a result, and not an end. 

Yet public worship implies a consciousness that others are 
‘taking part with the leader, and soa desire in him to assist 
their approach to God. Hence ecstatic devotion, excluding 
the sense of fellowship with men by the sense of Jehovah’s 
glory, is scarcely natural in public worship. Whoever con- 
ducts such worship should ordinarily be so far mindful of 
those who are expected to join in it as to fix his attention 
upon objects of common interest, and use language fit to be 
uttered by the common voice; in order that those who hear 


378 Christian Ethics. 


may appropriate his words in silence, if not by an audible 
Amen at the close. 

Remark. In this connection, it would be well to examine 
carefully the prayers, some private and some public, recorded 
in the Scriptures; and, in particular, the Book of Psalms. 


CHAPTER IL 
CHRISTIAN CONDUCT WITH REFERENCE TO ONE'S SELF, 


From the circumstance that Christ makes love to one’s self 
the standard of love to a fellow-man, two inferences may be 
drawn; namely, first, that he looked upon a certain degree of 
self-love as right; and, second, that he knew men were not 
deficient in that love. 

Self-love is, indeed, far too strong in the heart of man unre- 
newed, — so strong as to be a passion, blind and tyrannical. 
But in the Christian it is not supreme, though it still exceeds 
the lawful measure,— that of love to one’s neighbor. In 
what way, then, should the Christian have respect to his own 
character, improvement, and welfare in the conduct of life? 
This is the question which we are now to answer according 
to the intimations of God’s word. 

And it may be answered thus: in so far as Christians can 
properly have regard to themselves in their conduct, they 
should seek their own highest good, especially by aiming to 
render their whole nature, in body and spirit, perfect. But 
this general reply is too vague for our purpose. We must 
look at the subject in detail, beginning with the spiritual side 
of our being, and passing thence to the animal. We shall 
thus be led to consider the moral and religious, the zntellectual 
and esthetic, and finally the bodily powers, which are to be 
guarded and improved by right conduct. 

The Scriptures always treat men as moral beings, able to 
distinguish between good and evil, right and wrong, and te 


Conduct with Reference to One's Self. 379 


feel their obligation to do the one, and avoid the other. 
Moreover, they sometimes speak of that in their nature, by 
which they are able to do or feel this, as conscience. Acts 
xxiv. 16; Rom. ix. 1; 2 Cor.i. 12; 1 Tim.i. 5, 19; in. 9; 2 
Tim. i. 3; Heb. xiii. 18; 1 Peter iii. 16 (cf. 1 Cor.av. 4; Heb. 
9, 14; x. 22; 1 Peter ii. 19; i. 21). 

The term, ovveidyory, means literally “a knowing with 
one’s self,’— that is, “consciousness,” then “ conscience.” 
Whewell says, “Conscience is the reason employed about 
questions of right and wrong, and accompanied with the 
sentiments of approbation and condemnation; which, by the 
nature of man, cling inextricably to his apprehension of right 
and wrong.” — (Sys. Mor. Lect. VI. See Fleming’s Vocab. of 
Phil. sub. v., and Hofmann’s (R.) “ Lehre von der Gewissen.”) 

Conscience may be regarded as discriminative, mandatory, 
and sensitive in its functions; but it will be enough for our 
present purpose to speak of it as discriminative and sensitive. 
These two functions must, however, be carefully distin- 
guished ; for it is one thing to see that a given course of .con- 
duct is right, and quite another to love it on that account. 
Hence the judicial power of conscience is sometimes good, 
when its tenderness is lost; and its tenderness is sometimes 
great, when its power of discrimination is feeble. 

From some of the passages noted above, it appears that 
Christians should excel other men in soundness and purity of 
conscience, and that strict regard should be paid by them to 
the culture of their moral nature. 

Hence it may be said, in the frst place, that every Chris- 
tian should bring his conscience, as a judicial power, to bear 
upon his whole life, secular and religious; and should assist 
this faculty to decide aright by every means within his reach. 
He should not only give the first place to the question, Is 
this or that contemplated action right? but he should aid his 
moral judgment by the use of all available knowledge, to 
answer this question correctly. Moreover, it will be his duty 
to pass judgment upon actions already performed by himself 
or by others, and, indeed, to study, if practicable, the whole 


380 Christian Ethics. 


science of Christian ethics. In this way only can the judicial 
power of conscience be fitly cultivated. 

And it may be said, in the second place, that every Chris- 
tian should strictly obey the decisions of his own conscience. 
To this remark there can be no exception. It is impossible 
for any one to be without blame in doing that which he be- 
lieves to be wrong. To deny the authority of conscience in 
a single instance is to pronounce the moral nature a wreck, 
and remove the actor beyond the sphere of responsibility. 
Yet we do not mean to say that the decisions of conscience 
are always right; this is far from true: yet, right or wrong, 
they are imperative. By careful obedience to conscience, its 
practical force and its continued sensitiveness are increased. 

It may also be said, in the ¢hzvd place, that every Christian 
should abstain from such forms of mental action as tend in 
any way to injure the clearness or sensitiveness of his con- 
science. Any kind of study which rarely presents moral 
questions or phenomena may deny to this faculty the exercise 
necessary to its health and improvement. Moreover, con- 
science is a practical faculty: it was meant to produce or 
control action; and therefore it must have to do with real 
life far more than with ideal. Much reading of fiction is, 
therefore, unfavorable to its growth in power. For the same 
reason, no Christian can dwell in imagination upon scenes of 
cruelty, deception, or vice, without peril to conscience ; much 
less can he witness such scenes very often without injury. 
Gladiatorial combats, bull-fights, horse-races even, are likely 
to harm the moral nature; and the same may be said of the 
stage. 

But two points need to be recalled and supported by the 
language of Scripture, namely : — 

(1) That the decisions of conscience are not always correct. 
Acts xxvi. o\(cf. 1 Cor. xv. 93 1 Tim. i./13,16) 

(2) That it is wrong for Christians to disregard the de- 
cisions of a weak conscience (1 Cor. viii. 7, 10, 12; x. 28, 20; 
Rom. ii. 15). If they are bound to respect such a conscience 
in others, it is plain that they should obey it when it is their 
own. To these we add, — 


Conduct with Reference to One's Self. 381 


(3) That Christianity i the only religion which can fully 
purify and educate the conscience of man.— See 1 Tim. i. 5, 
meee, hime i. 3; Eleb. ix. 0,147 x: 22; xi.) 18! (cf. 1 Tim; iv. 
2; Tit. i. 15); for it insists ona perfect moral standard, 
while it brings the believer, though still imperfect, into favor 
with God through Christ, and gives him hope of ultimate 
holiness. 

But, though morality and religion are so united that neither 
can prosper without the other, they are not, as ‘many believe, 
identical. We are able to distinguish between trust in Christ, 
and a sense of duty to him; between love to God, and a con- 
viction that he ought to be loved; between the effect of 
divine grace as a state of the heart, and the act of seeking 
that grace, or of manifesting that state. 

Though devout affections are due to the grace of God, they 
are strengthened by exercise; and therefore it is clearly a 
part of our duty to provide for that exercise. Hence it 8 
plain that meditation on the power, the wisdom, the holiness, 
and the love of God—a reverent but trustful uplooking of 
the soul to him, and a diligent study of his word and works 
for the purpose of obtaining new views of his glory —are 
embraced in Christian conduct. 

The New Testament inculcates penitence for sin, lowli- 
ness of heart, submissiveness of will, and perfect docility 
towards God. These are humble virtues; they attract little 
notice ; they are foreign to the unrenewed mind. But they 
are of great price in the sight of God, and they are indispen- 
sable to Christian life. 

Again, it has been often remarked, that the sacred writers 
insist upon the duty of meekness, patience, forbearance, long- 
suffering, forgiveness of injuries, and a lowly estimate of one’s 
self as compared with others; in a word, upon the passive 
virtues rather than the active, the enduring rather than the 
heroic, the obscure rather than the conspicuous. A desire to 
shine by his own light, and to be admired for his own excel- 
lence, is a heathen, not a Christian feeling. But this topic 
has been considered in the Manual of Theology, and may 
therefore be dismissed with only a brief notice. 


382 an Christian Ethics. 


Again, Christian conduct should have some respect to the 
health and growth of one’s mental powers. And this growth 
depends (1) upon their being safficzently used. In profes- 
sional men, there is, perhaps, as much danger of their being 
overworked, as of their being left idle. Christian ethics 
requires one to avoid both extremes, and thus secure a nor- 
mal development of the mind. (2) Upon their being rightly 
used. No mental power should be neglected; no one should 
be cultivated in such a way as to injure another. Reason, 
memory, taste, will, should all be disciplined for the best ser- 
vice. The Christian must therefore have ‘regard to what 
he reads, and how he reads; he must learn to hear well, 
observe well, speak well. He must be interested in the phe- 
nomena of matter, as well as of mind; in nature inorganic, 
organic, animate, rational; and in the progress of events, 
whether social, civil, or religious. He must also provide for 
mental recreation; and to do this will sometimes test his wis- 
dom and virtue. Conversation and reading, games which 
require close thought, and those which tax the body, foreign 
travel, and camping out will offer their attractions. 

The Christian religion honors human feeling and sensi- 
bility, as well as intellect. It rejects the stoic view of life. 
It calls upon every Christian to shape his conduct with some 
regard to the training of his natural senses, susceptibilities, 
and affections. He should be able to appreciate the gran- 
deur and beauty of nature. He should admire the forms and 
colors which adorn the universe. He should know some- 
thing, if practicable, of music and painting, so that the bless- 
ings of life may be multiplied to him. 

And lastly, as the nature of man includes a body, the organ 
and instrument of the spirit, this body should also be suitably 
regarded in the conduct of life. It may be used for the glory 
of God (1 Cor. vi. 20). But, in order to this, it must be 
ruled by the spirit (1 Cor. ix. 27). Both suitable food and 
suitable exercise are necessary to the health and perfection of 
the body. Perhaps there is little reason to speak of the 
former; yet Christians are certainly liable to be too careless, 


Conduct with Reference to Other Men. 383 


as well as too fastidious, about their food. A plain, nutri- 
tious diet has much to do with mental, and even moral vigor; 
and for none is such a diet more necessary than for persons 
who labor with the mind, rather than with the body. In 
almost all cases, alcoholic and narcotic stimulants are sooner 
or later injurious to those who employ them. Men of seden- 
tary life have special reason to avoid them. 

Many employments furnish ample exercise to the body. 
But this is not true of all; and, when it is not, exercise 
should be sought as a condition of health and strength.» And, 
other things being equal, those forms of bodily exercise 
should be chosen for this purpose which are least likely to be 
abused by evil men. It is, however, extremely difficult to lay 
down any rules on the subject. But it is, perhaps, generally 
true that the most fascinating amusements are the most likely 
to be perverted. Walking, especially with a congenial friend 
or two, is a good exercise. Croquet, bowling, ball-playing, 
may prove equally healthful, and more attractive. Dancing 
is not an altogether safe recreation.« Riding on horseback is 
excellent, if one can afford it. Rowing is likely to be too 
severe. 


CHAPTER III. 


CHRISTIAN CONDUCT WITH REFERENCE TO OTHER MEN. — 
INTRODUCTORY, 


Ir may be inferred from several statements of the New 
Testament, and especially from Acts xvii. 26, and Luke x. 
27 seq. that every man should treat every other man as 
kindly as he would treat a neighbor or a brother; but the 
Christian standard for motive and conduct is defined even 
more exactly by Matt. xxii. 39, and vii. 12. 

The last of these passages, often called the Golden Rule, 
seems to presuppose three things: (1) that no man stands on 
a higher level in essential worth than his fellow-man; (2) that 


384 Christian Ethics. 


no man is entitled to better treatment from others than he is 
willing to accord to them ; (3) that God takes the will for the 
deed, making one’s settled desire the criterion and standard 
of his character. gs 

But, assuming the truth of these positions, can it even then 
be seen that one’s own desires are in all cases a safe guide to 
what would be best for others, and right for him to do to 
others? It is difficult to answer these questions in the 
affirmative ; for the desires of a selfish being crave much that 
is not for the highest good of that being, and cannot, there- 
fore, be a proper measure of what would be useful to another 
person of the same nature, even though they are a sure index 
of what might be justly required of their possessor. We are, 
therefore, inclined to something like the following view of the 
Golden Rule, namely : — : 

It requires that, in so far as conduct depends upon feeling, 
or may properly be swayed by it, every man should do to 
others as he can see that he would have them do to him, were 
he in their circumstances, and they in his. But, as love to 
one’s neighbor is not so strictly the fulfilling of the law as 
rather a pledge of its fulfilment, so the Golden Rule is not of 
itself an all-sufficient guide to duty, but rather a clear state- 
ment of the feeling that will insure right conduct towards 
others. It is a perfect expression of what a man, so far as he 
himself is concerned, ought to be willing to do. It points out 
the degree of self-sacrifice which he should be ready to make; 
and, if he is ready to make it, he will rarely or never do 
wrong to his neighbor. 

And, if we look at the second great command of the law, it 
will be necessary to bear in mind, — 

(1) That neither self-love, nor love to one’s neighbor, in- 
cludes of necessity any moral approbation of the character of 
the person loved. It is, rather, a genuine interest in the wel- 
fare of that person, though his character may be viewed with 
abhorrence. 

(2) That external duties are often affected in this life by 
local, social, domestic, or ecclesiastical relations, and not © 


Conduct with Reference to Other Men. 385 


determined altogether by the degree of love which ought to 
be felt for the persons.concerned. 

(3) That natural affection and moral sympathy knit to- 
gether many hearts with ties additional to the tie required by 
the second command. Hence it is possible for one human 
being to love another better than himself; that is, with a self- 
sacrificing love. 

But we must consider Christian conduct with reference to 
others in the several relations of life, and, — 


SECTION I.— IN CHURCH RELATIONS. 


The bond of union which connects members of the same 
church is twofold, —love to their common Lord, and love to 
one another; the latter growing out of the former. —(See 1 
John iv. 20, 21; Matt. x. 42; xxv. 40.) 

The primary relation of the members of a Christian church 
to one another is that of brethren, all being entitled to the 
same privileges. Matt. xxii. 8; Acts. vi. 3; 1 Cor. vill. 12; 
Gal. iii. 26 seg. (cf. 1 Cor. xii. 12 seg.; Gal. vi. 10; Eph. ii. 18 
eeiteD. i. 6; 1 lim. vi, 2:5; 1 Peter i.9; vig; Rev. 1 6; 
and “Bap. Quarterly,” iv. p. 225 seg., “Church Polity;” also 
Litton (E. A.) “ The Church of Christ”; Jacob (G. A.) “The 
Ecclesiastical Polity of the New Testament ”; Ripley (H. J.) 
“Church Polity” ; Whately (R.) “The Kingdom of Christ.”) 

Hence social and civil distinctions do not affect one’s posi- 
tion in the church. A son may be made the spiritual over- 
seer and teacher of his father, or a servant of his master. 
But natural distinctions, as of sex, ability, and experience, are 
not to be overlooked in the organization and work of a 
church. ; 

It may be noted in particular, — 

(1) That every member of a Christian church should seek 
the spiritual welfare of the other members with all fidelity, 
love, patience, and hope (Gal. vi. 2; Phil. ii. 3 seg.; Rom. i. 
VE 12). ; 

(2) Should co-operate with the others, according to his cwn 
gift, in every good work; that the church being complete, 


386 Christian Ethics. 


wanting nothing, may accomplish its labor of love (Rom. xii. 
4 seq.; 1 Cor. xii. 12 seg). These are gmost instructive para- 
graphs. 

(3) Should treat the poor, the lowly, the ignorant, with as 
much honor and affection as those who have wealth or sta- 
tion or learning (Jas. ii. I seg.). This passage does not refer 
to members of the church; though it must apply to them, as 
well as to others. 

(4) Should fully recognize the rights and functions of 
church officers, and heartily honor those officers (Heb. xiii. 7, 
17). The kind of authority belonging to pastors should be 
carefully learned from the New Testament; and, when 
learned, it snould be exercised on the one hand, — respected 
on the other. 

Hence we remark still further, — 

(2) That fraternal equality in the church does not of itself 
render one eligible to office in the same; much less does it 
entitle one to claim office. Fitness for special service is the 
only sufficient reason for appointment to it; and the brethren 
as a body must judge of this fitness. 

(6) That, in judging of any member's fitness for the minis 
try, the brethren must bear in mind the qualifications enume- 
rated by the apostle (1 Tim. ili. 1-7; Tit. ii: 6-9), quite as 
much as the member’s sense of duty. A similar remark may 
be made in respect to deacons. — (See 1 Tim. iii. 8-10.) 

(c) That women are not eligible to the ministry; nor is it 
their duty to address public assemblies comprising men as 
well as women (1 Tim. ii. 12—15; 1 Cor. xiv. 33-35). 

In the former passage, Paul affirms (1) that the sphere of ' 
woman’s appropriate and blessed activity is domestic (v. 15); 
(2) that in public assemblies she is to be a learner, quiet and 
subordinate to man,—not a teacher, or one exercising author- 
ity over man (12, 13); and (3) that this position is assigned 
her in view of her distinctive nature as revealed in the history 
of the first sin (14). 

In the latter passage, Paul enjoins upon Christian women 
the duty of silence in the church assemblies, and supports: 


Conduct with Reference to Other Men. 387 


this injunction by an appeal (1) to the practice of all the 
other churches (33); ) to the divinely ordained subordina 
tion of woman to man (34); (3) to the instinctive feeling of 
right-minded persons, especially women (35). If this inter- 
pretation of the last clause be rejected, we must suppose that 
the apostle regarded public speaking as incompatible with the 
true nature of woman. — (See also 1 Tim. iii. 11; v. 9, 10.) 

But, against this apparently obvious and indisputable sense 
of the two passages quoted above, many things are urged on 
the ground of Scripture and of reason. And, in particular, — 

The following passages of Holy Writ (1 Cor. xi. 5-16; 
Meru mae OQ: XVill, 26; ..17, 18; i, 14; Luke i. 38; Exod. 
v7 20,21 > padees iv. 4—6, 145 v.. 1;, Ps. Ixvill. 12; Gal. -iii. 
28). It is manifestly proper for us to look with care at these 
statements of Scripture; for our simple duty is to ascertain, 
if possible, the will of God on the point in question. 


In the first passage, women are admonished not to pray or prophesy 
with uncovered head; and this admonition is enforced bysundry reasons, 
especially by one from the subordination of woman to man, and by one‘ 
from the custom of all the churches. It is therefore inferred that the 
apostle had in mind praying or prophesying in the public assemblies of 
the church; and that he sanctioned the practice by simply correcting an 
abuse in it. 

But we see no evidence that Paul refers to public assemblies of the 
church. For, beyond a doubt, there were many small meetings of Chris- 
tians in private houses, where men and women prayed and talked 
together familiarly; and in these the apostle may have encouraged 
women to pray and prophesy, though with due modesty, and recognition 
of man as the natural leader in even such meetings. This is the view to 
which Meyer came in the last revision of his coor en ay on the First 
Epistle to the Corinthians. 

In the second passage, Luke mentions that Philip, the Evangelist, had 
four unmarried daughters who possessed the gift of prophecy, or inspira- 
tion; and it is inferred that they were accustomed to deliver their proph- 
ecies in public assemblies. But we know of nothing decisive in favor of 
this inference. The word “ prophesy” means undoubtedly to speak for 
God, to utter truth received by inspiration from him: but this truth may 
be communicated by writing as well as by word of mouth, and to one or 
two as well as to many (I Sam. xxii. 5; 2 Sam. vii. 5,17; xii. I seg.5 1 
Kings xi. 29 seg., xiii. I seg., &c.). 


388 Christian Ethics. 
’ 

In the third passage, Priscilla is spoken of with her husband as having 
set the way of the Lord more exactly before the mind of Apollos; and 
hence it is supposed that Christian women*may teach in the public 
assemblies. But we are unable to see the connection between the pre- 
mise and the conclusion. 

In the fourth passage, the effect of the outpouring of the Spirit on the 
day of Pentecost is said to include a fulfilment of Joel’s prophecy, that 
“sons and daughters,” “servants and handmaids,” should prophesy; and 
hence it is supposed that Christians of both sexes took part in the public 
speaking of that wonderful day. But we find no satisfactory evidence of 
this in the narrative, and of course none in the single word “ prophesy.” 

In the fifth passage, Luke says that the women continued in prayer 
with the other disciples ; but this they might certainly have done without 
leading the company in their worship. 

In the sixth passage, Luke mentions that Anna, an aged prophetess, 
who lived in the temple, came up at the very time when Jesus was pre- 
sented by his mother in the temple, “ gave thanks to the Lord, and spoke 
of him to all that were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem.” But 
that this giving of thanks, or speaking, was in the presence of any thing 
like an assembly, we do not know. Is it not more probable that she 
joined the family group, and expressed her thanks to God in a simple, 
informal way, while both on that day and afterwards she spoke of the 
holy child to such devout persons as she met in the courts of the temple? 
Says Bleek, “It would be proper to place a period before kat eAarev, 
especially as the speaking mentioned here was not restricted to what she 
said while the child was present in the temple” (Drei ersten Evang. i. S. 
go). Godet also observes that “it is not necessary to refer the imper- 
fect, éAa2«, to the actual moment; she was doing thus continually” (Com. 
ad. loc). And Olshausen remarks that “the aged woman with busy 
haste imparted the joy of her heart to like-minded friends of the Messiah 
in Jerusalem:” We may ask still further, why, if her address was a pub- 
lic one to a considerable assembly, it is said that she “was speaking of 
him to all those who were waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem” ? 
A public address could hardly have been restricted to that class. 

The seventh passage may be explained by the Speaker’s Commen- 
tary. —“‘The men are represented as singing the hymn in chorus, under 
the guidance of Moses; at each interval, Miriam and the women sang 
the refrain, marking the time. with the timbrel, and with the measured, 
rhythmical movements always associated with religious festivities (Comp. 
Judges xi. 34; 1 Sam. xviii. 6; and 2 Sam. vi. 5).” This narrative does 
not therefore have any bearing on the subject before us, except only as 
Miriam is called a prophetess; and this circumstance decides nothing. 

In the eighth passage, Deborah, the prophetess who judged Israel for - 
a time, is said to have summoned Barak to lead the warriors of Israel 


Conduct with Reference to Other Men. 389 


against their enemies now in the land; and, in. compliance with his 
demand, to have gone with him to the war. After the victory, these two 
are said to have sung a triumphal song; but whether they two chanted it 
together in public, or in private, we cannot be certain. Perhaps it was 
only composed by them, as the song of their hearts to the Lord, and 
vocalized by them and by the people, as other sacred songs (cf. 2 Kings 
xxii. 14 seq.). 

In the ninth passage it is said, “ The Lord gives the word; the women 
that publish the glad tidings are a mighty host.” To what does this lan- 
guage refer? Dr. Conant answers, by quoting Exod. xv. 20, “All the 
women went out with timbrels ” (Miriam, &c.), seg. and 1 Sam. xviii. 6, 
“The women came out of all the cities of Israel, singing,” &c.; and he 
adds that “verses 12-14 in the Psalm may be understood as the mes- 
sage which they proclaim.” Hupfeld says, “It is the chorus of singing 
and dancing women whom we see in the Old Testament, as in all 
antiquity, celebrating victories. —(See Exod. xv. 20; Judges v. II, 34; I 
Sam. xviii. 6 seg.; 2 Sam. i. 20, and verse 26 below.”) So also Vaihinger, 
Ewald, Olshausen (Justin), Tholuck, De Wette, Alexander, Noyes. De- 
litzsch says that “there is no reference here to the preaching of the 
gospel”; and in this we think he is certainly correct. 

In the last passage, we have the doctrine, that, so far as salvation in 
and through Christ is concerned, there is no difference between Jew and 
Greek, bond and free, male and female; but how this bears on the ques- 
tion before us, we fail to see. 

We conclude, therefore, that there is no passage in the Bible, which, 
fairly interpreted, conflicts with the przma-facze sense of Paul’s language 
in 1 Cor. xiv. 33-35; and 1 Tim. ii. 12-15. 


But is this language of the apostle applicable to Christian 
women of the present day? “Tempora mutantur; mores 
mutantur.” This question seems to us more difficult to 
answer than the one which we have been considering; for 
the form of some of the precepts or counsels given by the 
apostles was determined, no doubt, by temporal or local cir- 
cumstances, though the underlying principle must have been, 
in all cases, of perpetual validity. 

This statement is founded on certain expressions in the 
following texts (Acts xv. 29; 1 Cor. vii. 1, 7, 26; xi. 6 seg. 5 
I Tim. ii. 9, 10). But it should be observed (i) that other 
passages of the New Testament show that the regulation 
recorded in Acts xv. 29, was temporary, not permanent, 
except as embraced in other teaching of the Scriptures; 


390 Christian Ethics. 


(2) that the language of Paul commending celibacy as better 
in certain cases than marriage is still applicable to some in 
the church, for marriage is not best for all Christians; yet a 
special reason for his words is intimated by 1 Cor. vii. 26; 
and (3) that a principle of eternal validity underlies the lan- 
guage respecting female dress and ornament, though it may, 
perhaps, be right to vary the application of it with changes of 
time and place. 

Are we, then, authorized to class the apostle’s injunction of 
silence on the part of women in public assemblies with the 
expressions just noticed? Are the grounds on which the 
injunction is made to rest temporary or permanent, fluctua- 
ting or stable? These grounds may be reduced, to two; 
namely, the divinely established subordination of woman to 
man, and the custom of the apostolic churches; and the 
second of these may be presumed to rest upon the first. 

Two questions now present themselves: (1) Is the act of 
addressing public assemblies, composed of men and women, ~ 
now and naturally inconsistent with the subordinate position 
assigned to woman by her Creator? and (2) Is this subordina- 
tion penal, abnormal, and destined to be gradually removed 
by the Christian religion ? 

To the former question, an affirmative reply must, we 
think, be made ; for it would be difficult to name any kind of © 
leadership more real than that of public speakers. Indeed, 
the authority or influence of Christian pastors is nearly all 
embraced in their privilege of standing forth as the teachers 
and guides of the people by means of public discourse. To 
the latter question, we are constrained to reply in the nega- 
tive ; for woman was originally given to man as a fit helpey 
(Gen. ii. 18); and her relative position is recognized as still 
the same after conversion (Eph. v. 22 seg.; 1 Cor. xl. 3, 7-9; 
I Peter iiii 1-7). The language of Gen. iii. 16, may imply 
that man’s authority over woman would be felt as a burden 
henceforth ; but in itself it was no more a part of the penalty 
of sin than childbearing was a part of that penalty. 

From this examination we return to our first statement, 


Conduct with Reference to Other Men. 391 


that women are neither eligible to the Christian ministry, nor 
is it their duty to address public assemblies of both sexes. 
If asked to define the expression,.“ public assemblies,” wé car 
only respond in a general way, by saying, They are assem- 
blies of people too large to be easily addressed in a conversa- 
tional tone without rising from one’s seat. In smail social 
meetings, especially such as are often held in private houses, 
Christian women may speak or pray without transgressing 
the rule given by the apostle. They may also recount their 
personal experience to the church from time to time in cove- 
nant meetings; and the information which they thus give 
enables others to sympathize with them. 


* SECTION II.—IN DOMESTIC RELATIONS. 


As marriage is the basis of these relations, it claims atten- 
tion at the outset. We shall therefore speak of the design 
and the law of marriage. 

The marriage union was evidently designed, — 

(1) To bring into healthful action the moral nature of both 
parties: since, beyond all other relations, it calls for the 
exercise of mutual integrity, confidence, affection, and ten- 
derness. 

(2) To improve the mental powers of both. The natural 
difference between man and woman renders their influence 
in this respect more stimulating and wholesome, while it 
prevents envy and ill-will. 

(3) To cultivate the social affections. Celibates are liable 

to become, in process of time, selfish and censorious. Even 
natural affection may die for want of suitable exercise. 
g (4) To tranquillize the violent, and regulate the sensual pas- 
sions of man. On this point we are not accustomed to speak 
with as much freedom as they do in Germany; but it is one 
which ought not to be wholly overlooked by the intelligent 
Christian. 

(5) To continue the human race without further deteriora- 
tion. For while it is certain that the organs and instincts of 
our nature unite with the Scriptures in proving that God 


392 Christian Ethics. 


intended to have mankind increase, and fill the earth, it is no 
less certain that children born and nurtured in wedlock have 
great advantages over those who are not. To say the least, 
they have the love and care of two parents, instead of one. 
But this is only a small part of their advantage, —an advan- 
tage which is really too great and manifold to be set forth in 
words. ‘ 

Remark. From what has been said, we conclude, — 

(1) That marriage, when their circumstances permit of it, 
should be regarded by Christians in general as more than 
lawful, —as desirable and wise. Many persons are plainly 
counselled by the word of God to seek cr to welcome matri- 
mony (1 Thess. iv. 3-7; I Tim. v. 14; 1 Cor vileipeesa 
26-28). 

(2) That there are persons, perhaps few in number, who, in 
certain states of society, do right in forbearing to marry 
(Matt. xix. 12; 1 Cor. vii. 7, 8, 26, 32-34). But the papal. 
church is not authorized by the Scriptures to ascribe special 
sanctity to a single life (Heb. xiii. 4); nor to forbid the 
clergy to marry (1 Tim. iv. I —3). 

If we now pass to the Jaw of marriage, it will be found to 
embrace several particulars ; for example, — 

(1) It limits the union to one of each sex. Monogamy is 
Christian; polyganiy, unchristian (Matt. xix. 4-6). The 
union of our two first parents in Eden was evidently adduced 
by the Saviour as furnishing the type and norm of all true 
marriage ; and the view which he inculcated is confirmed by 
the fact that the number of men is about equal in every land 
to the number of women. 

Remark. It has been inferred from 1 Tim. iii. 2; Tit. i. 64 
which teach that a bishop must be “ husband of oxe wife,” — 
pias yuvamos avdoc., — pias yuraixos avip, —that polygamy was: 
tolerated among the laity of the apostolic churches, though 
under protest, as disqualifying one for the highest spirityal 
service ; just as divorce for other causes than one was toler- 
ated among the Jews, because of the hardness of their hearts. 
But there are two serious objections to this view; namely 


Conduct with Reference to Other Men. 393 


(1) that polyandria was unknown at that time, yet the apostle 
uses the same phrase of an enrolled widow (1 Tim. v. 9), that 
she must be “ wife of oze husband” ; and (2) that there is no 
trace whatever of polygamy in the early churches. For the 
true interpretation, see “ Scriptural Law of Divorce,” sect. 4. 

(2) It limits this union, in case of Christians who are yet 
free, to persons whose conjugal influence will not be likely te 
lead the Christian away from Christ, or interfere with his 
“orowth in the grace and knowledge of Christ,” or diminish 
his service of the Lord (1 Cor. vii. 39; 2 Cor. vi. 14). 

Many interpreters believe that these passages forbid a 
Christian to contract marriage with an unbeliever (Tert:,, 
Cyp., Ambr., Jerom., Grot., Est., Beng., Olsh., Mey., De W., 
Alf., Con., and How., Stanley, and perhaps Hodge). And at 
first sight this seems to be the natural] interpretation ; but 
Chrys., Theoph., Calv., Beza, and perhaps Rickert, take a 
different view, namely, the one first expressed; and this view 
is favored by the use of “in the Lord,” é zvgiw, in Eph. vi. 1. 
Even thus understood, however, the passage would discoun-: 
tenance the marriage of believers with unbelievers, unless, 
perhaps, in exceptional cases. 

Two important objections are urged against the interpreta- 
tion favored by a majority of expositors, namely, — 

(a) That the persons of one sex are always nearly equal in 
number to those of the other; while the Christians of one sex 
are often far more numerous than those of the other. But 
to this it may be replied, that it is always safe to obey the 
law of God, and leave the result with him. 

(6) That parental, filial, and conjugal relations resemble one 
gnother in closeness and sacredness; while, from the nature 
_of the case, the two former are independent of religious 
character. — (See I Cor. vil. 10.) But it may be replied, that 
the cases are not alike, except where one of the parties is 
converted after marriage. Entering into marriage with an 
unbeliever is not to be put on a level with continuing in that 
union when formed; for we readily admit that incompati- 
bility of temper may be a sufficient reason for not seeking 


304 Christian Ethics. 


marriage with a particular person, while we promptly deny 
that it is a sufficient reason for dissolving marriage. — 
(German Baptists.) 

3) It requires husband and wife to love and assist each 
other. They should be one, having, as far as it is practi- 
cable, all interests and anxieties in common (Matt. xix. 3-9; 
Eph. v. 22 seg.). It may well be doubted whether the 
present tendency of legislation to distinguish between the 
property of husband and wife is free from danger to the mar- 
riage union. 

(4) It makes the husband head of the domestic circle, in- 
cluding the wife (1 Peter iii. 1-7; Eph. v. 22 seg. ; Col. iii. 
18). Yet, while this position is. assigned to the husband, it 
will be observed that he is specially charged with the duty of 
loving his wife. A Christian husband should never forget 
this duty, any more than a Christian wife should forget the 
duty of giving the place of authority to her husband. ® 

(5) It makes the union indissoluble, except by death or 
unfaithfulness. — (See Matt. xix. 8,9; and the “ Scriptural 
Law of Divorce,’ with the article ‘“‘ Divorce,’ in “Smith's 
Dictionary of the Bible” ; and Harless (G. C. A. von) “ Die 
Ehescheidungsfrage.”) The legislation of many States is 
not in full agreement with the Christian law on this subject ; 
but this fact is no excuse for disregard of the latter by the 
followers or the churches of Christ. The morality of Chris- 
tians should be higher than that of the State. 

Our study of Christian conduct in domestic relations 
brings us, in the second place, to parental duties. For, 
according to the divine idea of the family circle, it is incom- 
plete without children. But with the blessing of children, 
come new and important duties, which may be brought 
under the following heads :— 

(1) Parents are under obligation to support their children 
during minority, or until the latter are able to support them- 
selves (1 Tim. v. 8). The words of the apostle do not, 
indeed, refer primarily to parents; but they seem to be a 
general statement, intended to justify the specific one made 


Conduct with Reference to Other Men. 395 


in verses 4 and 7. Children and grandchildren should, if 
able, provide for a widowed mother or grandmother; for it is 
in general the duty of those who are near kinsmen, and 
especially of those who belong to the same family, to provide 
for one another in case of need. And this, Paul suggests, is 
so plain a duty, that persons who have noi believed in Christ 
perform it; so that a Christian who should refuse to do it 
would be worse than an unbeliever. 

From this passage, by an argument @ minori ad majus, we 
conclude that parents should support their children until the 
latter are able to support themselves, and especially while the 
latter are in the family, and subject to the control of the 
former. The only case of doubt would be when cther kin- 
dred, as brothers or sisters, were much better able to do this 
than the parents. 

By “support”? may be understood the providing of suit- 
aple food, clothing, and shelter. But the quality of these 
may vary with circumstances, as severity or mildness of 
climate ; health, sex, or probable employment of the chil- 
dren; station, resources, and other duties of the parents ; 
and habits of dress or living in a particular age or place. 
Yet, if parental love is strong, there will be little danger of 
neglect in this matter. 

(2) Parents should govern their children, though with a 
wise regard to age, health, temper, &c. (Eph. vi. 1; Col. iii. 
20). Government is more than advice, admonition, entreaty, 
or bribery; it is authority, to which obedience is rendered 
from a sense of duty or a fear of penalty. Parental govern- 
ment by moral suasion alone is not recommended by Solo- 
mon (Prov. iii. 11, 12; xiii. 24; xix. 18; xxiii. 13, 14; xxix. 
15). Mr. Oncken once said that there “was enough family 
government in America, but it was in the hands of the chil- 
dren.” Parental control should be mild and affectionate, 
but firm and steady. 

(3) They should educate their children for the duties of life 
(Eph. vi. 4; Deut. vi. 6, 7). This education must include a 
proper training of their faculties, mental, moral, physi- 


396 Christian Ethics. 


cal, — with some regard, in most instances, to their probable 
work in life. But the former is of chief importance. Their 
great duty is to train their children by all proper means, in 
the way of piety, integrity, and sound knowledge, to Chris- 
tian manhood and womanhood. 

Remark. The duties of parents to their children are mod- 
ified by the age, capacity, and character of the latter; and 
the time generally comes, as the latter grow up, when paren- 
tal authority should give place to counsel ; but’ the transition 
from one of these to the other will, in most instances, be 
natural and almost imperceptible. 

Our next topic is F2dzal Duties. And an enumeration of 
these must certainly include the following :— 

(1) Prompt and cheerful obedience. Eph. vi. 1-3 sen Jer, 
xxxv. 18, I9; Prov. xxx. 17). Submission to no earthly 
authority is so universally necessary and reasonable as that 
of children in early life to their parents. “Filial impiety, 
says Dr. Conant, “is a violation of one of the purest fe 
strongest instincts of nature.” A refusal to obey one’s 
parents can only be justified by the conviction that obedi- 
ence to them would be disobedience to God. 

(2) Docility in receiving their instruction (Prov. i. 8, 9; 
xxiii. 22). If parents are by the law of nature, for several 
years at least the teachers of their children, it may be safely 
presumed that children should receive with interest and 
respect the .instruction of their parents. Their respective 
duties must agree. 

(3) Peculiar deference to them through life (Ex. xx. 12; 
Prov. xxiii, 22). When children leave their father’s house, 
and have families of their own, they cease to be subject to 
their parents; but they can still honor them in many ways, 
and should certainly be careful to do this. — (Dr. Lord's 
theory.) 

(4) Cheerfully support them, if necessary (1 Tim. v. 8). 
The doctrine of Paul appears to be evident and reasonable. 
For while we may admit that the duty of parents to their off- 
spring is in this respect more self-evident than the duty of 


Conduct with Reference to Other Men. 397 


offspring to their parents, even as the love of parents to their 
children is more instinctive and universal than that of chil- 
dren to their parents, yet both are natural, and are, therefore, 
trustworthy indications of the will of God. 

It is the tendency of communism to ignore family in- 
stincts, affections, and duties, putting every thing into the 
hands of the State. But this tendency is against nature, — 
against all that is sweetest, purest, highest, holiest, most self- 
denying in life. Others, without being communists, believe 
_ that the State should do a large part of the work which the 

Bible assigns to parents, to children, or to friends. Their 
mistake is a grave one, though we are far from asserting that 
their motive is bad. The poor, the blind, the deaf, and dumb, 
the insane, and the idiotic may be objects of charity; but it 
does not certainly follow that the State should assume their 
support. Perhaps kindred or friends should do this. 
s The relation of brothers and sisters in the same family is 
one of natural equality as to privilege, duty, and discipline ; 
and their affection is often singularly pure, unselfish, and 
beautiful. Hence Christ said to his disciples, “All ye are 
brethren,” and by his Spirit moved the apostle to speak of 
him as “the first-born among many brethren.’”’ The frater- 
nal relation is extremely useful in the early discipline of life. 
It is very difficult to educate a single child. Brothers and 
sisters owe to one another, — 

(1) Fraternal Affection (Rom. xii. 10; Heb. xiii. 1; 1 Peter 
iii. 8; 2 Peteri. 7). This affection should be tender, unsel- 
fish, lifelong. To insure this, great forbearance, sincerity, 
and frankness are necessary. 

(2) Fraternal Concord. This is a natural fruit of affection ; 
and, when the latter is strong and pure, the former will be 
likely to exist. But let the bond of true affection be once 
severed by passion, selfishness, or insincerity, and the aliena- 
tion is apt to be very bitter and irreconcilable (Prov. vi. 19; 
XViti TO. Matt: x. 2y). 

(3) fraternal Help. ‘This help should be rendered in every 
way possible during childhood and youth; and, in riper 


398 Christian Ethics. 


years, by sympathy, counsel, and, if need be, property. — (See 
Gen. iv. 9.) 

Remark. The patriarchal and Jewish constitution of fam- 
ilies gave to the oldest son certain prerogatives which appear 
to spring from no natural source, and are therefore properly 
disregarded under the Christian dispensation. 

But in many families there are servants, as well as chil- 
dren; hence the reciprocal duties of masters and servants 
should be treated under the head of “domestic relations.” 
And, in speaking of these duties, we should bear in mind, — 

(1) That all men are of the same race and nature (Acts 
XVii. 26); (2) that all men have equal rights by nature, —a 
corollary from the preceding; (3) that all men are neighbors 
in the sense given to this term for the moral law by Christ 
(Luke x. 29 seg.); (4) that we should seek another's welfare 
as earnestly as we should our own (Matt. xxii. 39). No form 
of servitude which disregards these principles can be justified 
by Christian ethics. 


A. Duties of Masters to their Servants, or of Employers to 
those employed. 


These duties may be learned from the precept of Christ in 
Matt. vii. 12. A master should be willing, and should aim 
to treat his servant in all respects as he would be willing to 
have that servant treat him, if their positions were reversed. 
To put the same rule in the form of a prohibition: Christian 
morality forbids him to exact from another for his own bene- 
fit that which, willingly rendered, would express a higher 
moral excellence than he himself possesses ; for in the sight ~ 
of God no man has a just claim to be dealt with in a manner | 
better than he is willing to deal with others; nor has any one 
a right to complain of being treated as he aims to treat 
others. The rule, “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a 
tooth,” expresses a just principle, though it gives no sanction 
to private revenge. 

The general precept of Christ, already considered, is con- 
firmed by the more specific language of Paul (Eph. vi. 9; 


* 


Conduct with Reference to Other Men. 399 


Col. iv. 1; Philem. 8—<1 (cf. 1 Cor. xii. 13; Gal. iii. 28; iv. 
1). These passages teach, — 

(1) That masters should ascertain their duties to their ser- 
vants from the divine rather than the civil law; for the fact 
that God has spoken on the point is enough. 

(2) That they should treat their servants as having equal 
rights, whether as men, as husbands, or as parents with 
themselves. 

(3) That they shouid do this cheerfully and kindly. For 
the way in which an act is performed has oftentimes more to 
do with its moral quality than the act itself. Whatever is 
right should be done with the whole heart. 


B. Duties of Servants to their Masters, or of Employees to 
thetr Employers. 


These may also be learned from the precept of Christ in 
Matt. vii. 12, — a precept which is confirmed and explained 
for servants by the more specific language of two apostles. 
Biatieev.5—o; Col: im. 22—25; 1 Tim. vi. 1,2; Tit. i. 9, 
10; I Peter ii. 18-20; 1 Cor. vii. 20, 21 (cf. Philem. fasszmz.) 

In the light of these passages, it will be seen, — 

(1) That Christian servants should render cheerfully all 
the service which is due to their masters or employers. 

(2) Should obey the will of their masters, if not required 
by them to disobey God. 

(3) Should treat their masters with the respect due to their 
position. 

(4) Should do all this in spite of injustice and severity on 
the part of their masters. Christianity honors the passive 
virtues, as well as the active. 

(5) Should regard a state of freedom as preferable in itself 
to one of servitude, and act accordingly. The interpretation 
of 1 Cor. vii. 21 is doubtful; but a majority of recent inter- 
preters suppose it exhorts to remaining in slavery. We can- 
not, however, accept this view as the most probable. 

Remark. Though the passages cited above have respect 
to the duty of slaves, instead of hired servants, the duties of 


400 Christian Ethics. 


the latter are, for the time being, identical with those of the 
former. 

With the instructions of the New Testament may properly 
be compared the statutes of the Mosaic daw on the same sub- 
ject. That law did not introduce domestic servitude ; it 
rather ameliorated its character, — 

(1) By the rule that every Hebrew servant should be 
released at the end of six years, — longer servitude being 
strictly voluntary (Deut. xv. 16, 17). 

(2) By the rule that a Hebrew servant should not be 
retained in even voluntary servitude more than forty-eight 
years (Lev. xxv. 8-13, 39-45). 

(3) By the rule that masters must bestow liberal gifts on 
Hebrew servants at their discharge (Deut. xv. 12— 18). 

(4) By protecting a// servants from violence at the hand of 
their masters (Ex. xxi420,21,120:527)- 

(5) By providing for their instruction in the law of the 
Lord. Deut. xxxi. 10-13; Josh. vili. 33-35; Deut. xxix. 
10 =12\(ciGen. xvi. 12) 18; Exixx, re)! 

(6) By giving them ample rest from labor (Ex. xx. 10; 
Lev, xxv. 3-6; Deut. ‘xii. 17, 18; xvi. 10, 11). Add@storeiame 
years of rest in every fifty, six years of Sabbaths in the 
remaining forty-two, and the time of the national festivals, 
Easter, Pentecost, &c., and less than two-thirds of the time 
was left for labor. 

Remark (1) It may be that all servants became free at the 
year of jubilee. Lev. xxv. 10 (but cf. verses 39-55.) 

Remark (2). Asa rule, Gentile servants might, after three 
generations, enjoy all Jewish rights and privileges. Deut. 
xxiii. 2—8 (cf. xxix. 10— 12). 

Remark (3). Involuntary servitude was treated as abnor- 
mal (a) by prohibiting the act of sending back fugitive slaves 
to their masters (Deut. xxii. 15, 16); (0) by forbidding man- 
stealing (Ex. xxi. 16). Hence none but captives could be 
reduced to slavery against their will. 

Remar (4). The Bible did not, therefore, sanction slavery, 
but only tolerated it for the time because of the hardness of 


Conduct with Reference to Other Men. 401 


their hearts; and obedience to the Golden Rule is incom- 
patible with it. 


SECTION III. IN SOCIAL RELATIONS. 


We apply the term “ Social Relations” in its popular 
sense, reserving the business and civil relations of life for 
separate treatment. 

Men, and especially women, do very much in social inter- 
course to mould the character of one another. Hence the 
nature of their social influence is of the utmost a 
and Christian morality leads them, — 

(1) Zo be truthful in these relations; that is, to be in the 
habit of so speaking and acting as to convey to others their 
actual knowledge, belief, opinion, feeling, wish, or purpose, 
as the case may be. In support of this statement, reference 
may be made to several passages (a) (Ex. xviii. 21; Ps. xv. 2; 
fer Prov. 1) 2; vill. 7; Xi. 19; xxx. 23 ;,, Zech: vill. 16, 19; 
(erbeyv. v. 20; xix. 11; Prov. xix. 22; xiv. 15; xii. 19; Rev. 
fet ext & > (c). Ex. xxxiv.6;,1 Sam. xv.°29; Ps. xxv. 10; 
John 1. 14; viii. 40; xiv. 17). hi 

(2) Truthfulness is not necessarily violated by the use of 
tropical, ironical, or hyperbolical language (Deut. xxxii. 4; 
Job xii. 2; Dan. ii. 38; Acts ii. 5). But it may easily be 
violated by such forms of speech: there should be something 
in the connection, or in the tone of voice, to show the mean- 
ing of what is said. 

(6) It is not necessarily violated by withholding truth (cf. 
John vii. 6 seg.; Luke xxiv. 13 seg. ; Mark vi. 48). 

(c) It is often violated by the use of forms of speech 
adopted for the sake of politeness. However difficult it may 
be in this case to draw the line between true and false lan- 
guage, a Christian is bound to do it; for example, he cannot 
justify himself in telling a servant to report him as “not at 
home,” when he is only too busy to be seen. If the caller is 
not deceived, a bad use of language is made before servants 
and children. ; 

(@) It is often violated in repeating and adjusting anec- 


402 Christian Ethics. 


dotes, in pleading for clients at law, in pronouncing eulogies, 
and writing biographies (“De mortuis nil nisi bonum?”), in 
making use of other persons’ wit or wisdom without acknowl- 
edgment, in revealing secrets, or insinuating evil of others, — 


(“Fama malum, quo non aliud velocius ullum ; 
Mobilitate viget, viresque acquirit eundo,” seg. 
— Virg. A. IV. 174, 175; cf. Ovid M. xii. 43, seg.) 


in withholding just praise, &c. The biographical notices 
found in the Bible are models of candor. 

(e) It is sometimes violated in the treatment of the sick, 
and especially the insane. Physicians of large experience 
have testified that there is almost never any good reason for 
speaking what is not literally true to the insane; and we 
think it probable, that, in nine cases out of ten where doc- 
tors try to deceive their patients, it is wholly unnecessary for 
them to do so. 

(f) It is sometimes violated for the purpose of self-defence. 
Heb. xi. 31; James ii. 25 (cf. Josh. vi. 23). The faith, not 
the falsehood of Rahab, is commended by the sacred’writers. 
It is possible for an untaught person to mistake the path of 
duty, and yet be at the time loyal to God. Military feints, 
though intended to mislead, are not to be put on the same 
level with ordinary falsehood. They are understood to be 
puzzles for the enemy to solve, if he can. One foe has no 
right to know the plans of the other. The same is true in a 
game of chess. 

Christian morality leads men, — 

(2) To be magnanimous in their social relations (1 Cor. xiii. 
4, 5; 2 Cor. iv. 2, 5,15; Phil. ii. 4; iii. 7, 8} 1 Sg 
Num. xi. 29; Phil. i. 18; Rom. ix. 3).—(See Bunyan’s 
Great heart, in the second part of the “Pilgrim’s Progress,” 
&c. The occasions which call for true nobility of character, 
for patience, courtesy, self-forgetfulness, are very numerous 
in social life. 

(3) To be sympathizing in these relations. Rom. xii. 15 (cf. 
Gal. vi. 2; 1 Peter iii. 8; 1 Cor. xii. 15). According to its 


Conduct with Reference to Other Men. 403 


primary sense, sympathy is compassion, —that is, suffering 
with another ; but, as now used, it embraces rejoicing with 
another also; in a word, sharing another’s feelings, whether 
of sorrow or of joy. It is sometimes harder for a bad man to 
rejoice with another in his prosperity than to weep with him 
in his adversity. Ambition, envy, rivalry, are put to rest in 
the latter case, but are roused in the former. 

(4) To be beneficent in these relations. For a majority of 
mankind, social intercourse is the principal means of doing 
good beyond the family circle. And the art of conversing 
well, —that is, naturally, sincerely, cheerfully, intelligently, 
without cant, without slang, without assumption, —is a great 
accomplishment, and a means of usefulness second to no 
other. It should therefore be cultivated by all; and even 
students should feel that this art, which comes only by prac- 
tice, is a reason for their going into society. If Christians 
generally possessed the power of conversing well upon 
religious subjects, their usefulness would be more than 
doubled. But this power presupposes not only intelligence 
and practice, but also a right spirit, a genuine interest in 
men, a desire to do good in little things, as well as in great. 
It may be added, that social life belongs in an eminent 


degree to woman; indeed, almost as much so as domestic 
life. . 
SECTION IV. IN BUSINESS RELATIONS. 

If a Christian regulates his conduct in these relations by 
the rule of duty prescribed by the Bible, he will, — 

(1) Be honest. And honesty in business precludes every 
species of fraud, deception, misrepresentation, and requires 
fidelity to aii engagements. — (See Prov. xxiv. 14, 22; xvi. IT; 
Hos. xii. 1; Amos vill. 4 seg.). This statement applies to 
corporations, as weil as individuals, and to all kinds of false 
pretences, and repudiation of just debts. It condemns every 
. attempt to mislead the judgment of purchasers, It requires 
things to be called by ther right names. If the Golden 
Rule were fairly applied to all the processes of manufacture 
and trade, the change in society would be considered a revo- 


404 Christian Ethics. 


lution. The watering of milk, and of stocks, would cease. 
But this will never come to pass while the maxim that “busi- 
ness is business’? —a maxim whose import is deep and vast 
and mysterious as the ocean—is accepted as a sufficient 
reason for any course of conduct. The one principle which 
seems to be clearly indorsed by this maxim, namely, “ Every 
one for himself,” is false. War, instead of peace, is assumed 
to be the normal state of business. 

(2) Be equitable. We transfer this word to business rela- 
tions for want of a better one; and by equity in trade we 
mean the rendering of a full equivalent for what is obtained 
from another. Exchange of values should be for the equal 
benefit of both parties. This is the only general statement 
that agrees with the Golden Rule. Hence it is wrong for one 
man to take advantage of another’s necessity or ignorance, to 
wring from him an exorbitant price for any commodity. The 
practice of “cornering stocks,” or of getting control of the 
market for the purpose of compelling people to pay for an 
article more than it should be worth, is wrong. All this is, 
morally speaking, no better. than theft or robbery. It is 
living on others’ labor. Again, the practice of investing the 
proceeds of business in the name of a wife, that it may be 
saved from creditors in case of bankruptcy, seems to be 
unjust, especially if it be done while there are outstanding 
debts. 

(3) Be beneficent. To benefit others, as well as himself, 
should be an aim of every Christian man in business, as well 
as in social life. He should in all cases choose a useful 
employment. The product of his labor should be of real ser- 
vice to the people. Let wicked men raise the tobacco, man- 
ufacture and vend the intoxicating drinks, even if we believe 
it right to say that these articles are simply useless, but not 
injurious to mankind. A good man should be careful to ren- 
der a real equivalent to society for all that he receives from 
it. Moreover, he should seek to encourage others, —the 
young, the poor, the unfortunate, —in a business way (Deut. 
xxiv. 6, 10). What the latter need, in many cases, is not 


Conduct with Reference to Other Men. 405 


charity, but credit, —favor in the way of business, and possi- 
bly, in some cases, indorsement to lift them over a hard place. 
They wish to be put in a condition to earn for themselves 
what they need. But one should not indorse the paper of 
another! beyond what he is able and willing to pay, if this 
should become necessary. 

In speaking of domestic relations, we referred to the duties 
of employers and those employed, when the latter belong in 
a general way to the families of the former. But, in modern 
society, great numbers are hired to perform a definite work. 
To this class may be assigned factory operatives, mechanics, 
masons, miners, railroad employees ; indeed, a large part of 
the men who live by manual labor, with the exception of 
farmers. And the relations between this class and their 
employers are by no means satisfactory. The latter plan, 
organize, and direct the business, furnishing also the capital, 
and naturally expect large returns; while the former do the 
work, and often think themselves entitled of right to most of 
the profit. Neither class is deeply concerned for the welfare 
of the other. Neither class manifests as strong a desire to 
do all its duty to the other, as to have the other do all its 
duty to it. Hence “strikes” on the part of workmen are 
becoming frequent, and associations for the regulation of 
wages, &c., are multiplied. How, then, is this selfish and 
chronic warfare to be brought to an end? Two ways may be 
suggested : — 

(1) That both parties adopt the Golden Rule as their 
standard of duty in business, seeking to understand the rela- 
tious of capitai to labor, and of labor to capital, and neither 
of them wishing to overreach the other. The employer 
should feel that he is a robber, if he takes more than he 
gives; and the employé should judge himself by the same 
rule. 

(2) That workmen be allowed a reasonable share of the 
profits, instead of uniform wages, thus enlisting their interest 
in the business itself. In some kinds of business, the whole 
association may be composed of those who labor with their 


406 Christian Ethics. 


hands. In others, this may be found impracticable for want 
of sufficient capital; yet in such cases the workmen might, 
perhaps, be allowed to share in the management, the profits, 
and the losses of the business. 


APPENDIX. USE OF MONEY. 


Before leaving the present topic, we propose to speak 
briefly of the use of property for the good of mankind. For 
business and charity are closely connected. Indeed, it 
would be difficult to justify a Christian in laboring to accum- 
ulate wealth without regard to the use which he intends to 
make of it; and we venture to say that the best way of using 
property will often merit as careful thought and study as the 
best way of acquiring it. 

We have already remarked that those who are near of kin 
should assist one another when in need. For by the law of 
Christ, as well as by the law of nature, charity to the poor 
should begin with one’s own house, and then seek for objects 
beyond. But besides providing reasonably for his own sup- 
port, and for the necessities of immediate kindred, a Chris- 
tian is almost always able to do something for the higher 
interests of mankind. And the latter service should not be 
postponed until the former has been finished for life; but 
the two are to be associated from first to last, else there is 
reason to fear that the latter will be wholly neglected. 

We submit the following remarks on the charitable use of 
property — 

(1) Zo give ts to impart what is one’s own to another for his 
bencfit. The last clause of this definition is essential to it ; 
for love to others is the source of all true charity. If some- 
thing is imparted to another, not for his good, but for one’s 
own honor, advancement, or pleasure, the act, in its deepest 
character, is one of exchange, not one of giving. 

(2) “ Zo give ts more blessed than to receive’ (Acts xx. 35). 
From the Janguage of Christ, as quoted by Paul, we conclude 
that man has received from his Maker a spiritual constitution, 
which requires him to be beneficent. In his normal state he 


Conduct with Reference to Other Men. 407 


is like God,—a benevolent, rather than a selfish being. 
And this agiecs with the law of God, which demands of him 
love, rather than prudence; enthusiasm for the welfare of 
others, rather than intense regard for his own welfare. 

(3) To give liberally is therefore a Christian's privilege and 
duty. Matt. x. 8, dapear dhoBere, Sapecy Sore, xix. 21; Mark xii. 
41-44; Acts ii. 44, 45; 2 Cor. viii. 1-4; ix. 7 (cf. Prov. xi. 
25; Isa. xxxii. 8). We do not infer from the test which 
Christ applied to the young man, or from the praise which 
he bestowed on the poor widow, or from the course taken by 
the first Christians in Jerusalem, that it is always or com- 
monly wrong for Christians to hold and increase their prop- 
erty, at least for a time; but we must infer that they should 
be ready to part with it, if either the Lord’s honor or the 
best good of man requires this at their hands. Wealth in 
their possession should be a means of usefulness, rather than 
of self-indulgence; it should be held in trust for the Master’s 
service, and employed according to his will. We must also 
infer that the Lord is sometimes pleased to have his servants 
trust him in the dark for their daily bread, when the calls for 
charity are extremely urgent. 

(4) Zo give in proportion to one’s ability ts also a Christian's 
privilege and duty (2 Cor. ix. 12-153; 1 Cor. xvi. 2; Luke 
xii. 48). The truth of this statement needs no proof; but a 
Christian should be very cautious, when applying it, not to 
measure his own duty by the conduct of others (cf. 2 Cor. x. 
12). Circumstances may make it unwise for a rich man to 
give as much in proportion to his ability for a particular 
object as the poor may give; while, for other objects, he may 
give largely, and they give nothing. Great charity is needed 
in judging others. ~ 

(5) Zo give regularly, and at frequent intervals through life, 
7s a Christian's duty (2 Cor. xvi. 2). It is, perhaps, incon- 
venient for some to set aside, every Lord’s Day, a: portion of 
their income for charitable use; but it is certainly practicable 
for them to review the claims of Christ on that day, and keep 
themselves in readiness to give regularly of their substance 


408 Christian Ethics. 


to the Lord’s cause. This practice should begin with Chris- 
tian life, and cease only with death. 

(6) To give unostentatiously ts a Christian's duty and privi- 
lege (Matt. vii. 2-4). Christ condemns those who give alms 
to secure the praise of men; and, according to our first 
remark, this is not, in a moral sense, giving at all; it is 
rather buying a good name with money. Nay, more; it is in 
reality an act of either conscious or unconscious hypocrisy ; 
for the giver expects to be credited with a benevolent regard 
to others. But we do not suppose that Jesus intended to 
prohibit open or public almsgiving. He was dealing with 
the heart, the motive, rather than the outward act. And 
therefore it may sometimes be a Christian’s duty to give 
openly (1) that his words may be supported by his conduct; 
and (2) that others may be moved by his example to give 
also. Men are sometimes charged with baser motives than 
really influence them. 

(7) To give discreetly, according to the greatness of the object, 
and the urgency of the need. Among the great enterprises 
which ought to be sustained by the contributions of those 
who love the Saviour may be named (1) preaching the gospel 
to all mankind. This was laid upon his followers by the 
Lord, when he was about to leave them; and it is the only 
work which was thus solemnly committed to them. It 
should therefore hold the first place among Christian enter- 
prises; and all those who give to the support of foreign mis- 
sions are entitled to feel that they are aiding the most impor- 
tant work of the church. (2) Maintaining and applying the 
gospel where it is known. To this end, preachers, teachers, 
buildings, and books are needed. The means of grace cannot 
be brought to bear upon all classes in a land nominally Chris- 
tian, without a liberal use of money and of time for this pur- 
pose. (3) Providing institutions of higher learning for the 
people, and especially for the ministry. For unless the State 
is to support religion, and furnish all the means of education, 
including those needed by only a few of the people, Chris- 
tians must do this; and we have no doubt of its being their 


Conduct with Reference to Other Men. 409 


duty and privilege to do it. (4) Caring for the poor and 
unfortunate, the aged and infirm. Christ did not hesitate to 
relieve the bodily ills of those who appealed to his compas- 
sion. Paul did not think it inconsistent with his spiritual 
calling to raise money for the poor saints in Judea. And the 
early Christians were not more distinguished by their wor- 
ship of Christ than by their liberality to those in distress. 
But idleness and mendicancy must be discouraged. He that 
will not work has no right to eat; and indiscriminate giving 
is almost as evil as not giving at all. 

But, if Christians are to make giving an important part of 
their life-work, it is plain that they must have something to 
give. And to this end, they must be d/zgent and frugal, — 
must*earn much, and consume little. It would be easy to 
enlarge upon the former duty, that of diligence ; but we will 
limit our remarks to the latter, — that of economy. 

Economy should be practised by Christians, — 

(1) Lz food and drink. Wholesome food is necessary to 
health of body and vigor of mind; but the most highly 
seasoned and costly dishes are not the most wholesome. By 
proper care in the selection and preparation of food, a con- 
siderable sum might be saved from the yearly expenses of 
many families. For children, if not for older persons, water 
is the only suitable drink, unless milk be used as a substitute. 

(2) lx dress and equipage. We cannot doubt that very 
many Christians, and especially women, spend far more in 
this way, than is pleasing toe the Saviour. While complain- 
ing of the tyranny of fashion, they deem it necessary to sub- 
mit to that tyranny. And it is alleged that Protestant 
women dress more fashionably for church than do Catholic 
wumen (I Peter ill. 3, 4; I Tim. ii. 9, 10). But it is also true 
that many a Christian man has his carriage and span, not 
because he needs them, but because others of no greater 
wealth have them, and because they distinguish in a certain 
way; the moneyed aristocracy of the day. Thus he wastes 
several hundred a year in equipage. 

(2) In houses and furniture. There is almost equai 


410 Christian Ethics. 


danger of extravagance in this direction. Health and com- 
fort should be sought in the construction of a house, not 
display within or without. A fine house has been the ruin 
of mare than one fortune. Taxes, insurance, repairs, ser- 
vants, company, must all be provided for yearly; and often- 
times the admired house renders liberal giving impossible. 

(4) Jn books and travel. Itis easy to cultivate a passion 
for costly books, while deriving little benefit from what there 
is in them. Books should be bought as they are needed for 
use; and, with the exception of a few reference-books, it is 
a good rule to read or study one before buying another. In 
many places there are public libraries where all books for 
mere reading can be wisely obtained. As to travel for 
health and recreation, we need only remark, that it is an 
expensive luxury, and should be used sparingly. Ministers 
of Christ ought certainly to ask themselves how much it 
costs, and whether it is the best use to which they can put 
their limited means. 

(5) lu church buildings and choirs. There are few, we 
presume, who would hesitate to admit that many churches 
build costlier houses of worship than. they ought to build. 
By so doing they burden themselves with a heavy debt, and 
feel constrained to choose their minister with almost sole 
reference to his popular qualities. Sound or unsound in 
doctrine, consistent or inconsistent in life, he must be a 
man that will draw, and help pay the debt. We would 
speak with caution of choirs, and other helps to the con- 
gregation in worship, but have no doubt that churches often 
err in relying too much upon them. 


SECTION V. IN CIVIL RELATIONS. 


That civil government is an ordinance of God may be 
proved by an appeal to the Scriptures (Matt. xxii. 21; Rom. 
xiii, 1-7; Tim. ii. 2; 1 Pet. ii, 13-17); by an appeal to 
history, which shows that no people has long existed with- 
out some kind of government; and by an appeal to the 
present nature of man, which as social, and at the same 
time sinful, renders civil government necessary. 


Conduct with Reference to Other Men. 4II 


But government is ordained by God in the same way, 
and to the same extent, as labor is ordained by him. 
The form of neither is prescribed. That form is there- 
fore best which best secures the end to be sought; and 
the end to be sought by the State ds the protection of 
men in the exercise of their natural rights. Many, indeed, 
suppose that it should go far beyond this, and use its power 
for the support of every thing good, and the repression of 
every thing evil; but we are unable to accept this view. 

The form of any civil government depends upon the will 
of the people protected by it. That will is expressed either 
by action or by sufferance. Every person, therefore, is 
responsible in some degree for the character of the govern- 
ment by which he is protected; and his particular respon- 
sibility is measured by the influence which he is able, on 
Christian principles, to wield in determining its character. 
The responsibility of some persons is, ae far greater 
in this respect, than that of others. 

Christians may be called to act either as subjects, as sup- 
porters, as rulers, or as reformers, of. the State; hence the 
present section falls naturally into four parts. 

I. As subjects of the State, it is the duty of Christians to 
render cheerful obedience to the civil authority over them, 
whenever that authority does not require them to disobey 
God. Such obedience is clearly enjoined (1) by the Word 
of God in the passages cited above, (2) by the example of 
Christ and his apostles, and (3) by the dictates of sound 
reason; for it is plain that, without obedience, the good 
ends of civil government will never be reached. But our 
statement limits the duty of obedience to human magistrates 
by the higher duty of obedience to the will of God made 
known in the Scriptures. Is there not a contradiction in 
this? If we are told in one place to worship Jehovah, and 
in another to obey magistrates, what shall we do if the 
magistrates forbid us to worship Jehovah? Which of these 
commands supersedes the other? The answer to these 
questions is at hand: derived authority must yield to unde- 


412 Christian Ethics. 


rived, secondary to primary. The direct command of a 
sovereign cannot be annulled by his servant. On this prin- 
' ciple the apostles acted in preaching the gospel (Acts iv. 19; 
v. 29). On this principle, Daniel and the three worthies acted 
(Dan. vi. 10, 11; iii. 16-18). Andon this principle Christians 
should always act when civil rulers require them to disobey 
either the moral law, or any plain command of Christ. But 
when it is doubtful whether God has forbidden what the 
powers that be require, or has required what they forbid, 
it is proper that they should have the benefit of the 
doubt. 

II. As supporters of civil government, it is the duty of 
Christians (1) To pay cheerfully the taxes necessary to insure 
its honor and efficiency. The people should never suffer the 
government to repudiate an honest debt, or in any way to 
evade the payment of it. (2) To uphold it against enemies, 
even at the risk of life. Defensive war appears to be justi- 
fiable in many cases; for the State is organized for the 
express purpose of protecting the people against domestic 
and foreign violence. (3) To honor its laws and officers with 
the respect which their place in the government authorizes. 
Disobedience to a bad law should be a serious and thought- 
ful and even respectful act, never defiant or contemptuous 
Bad rulers should be treated in such a way as to put honor 
on the office, if not on the man. (4) To seek the blessing of 
God upon it. This is expressly stated by the apostle in one 
of the passages referred to above; and a sincere performance 
of this duty will prepare Christians to fulfil every other 
named by us. Let this be neglected, and the party spirit 
fostered by a frequent change of rulers is likely to weaken 
respect for government itself, as ordained of God. 

III. As officers of civil government, it is the duty of 
Christians to seek, within the proper limits of State control, 
the best good of the people; and this may be done by enact- 
ing good and useful laws, by interpreting them truly and 
impartially, and by executing them without fear or favor. 
But, in the best constitutional governments, these distinct 


‘ we 
Conduct with Reference to Other Men. 413 


functions are assigned to separate officers. Hence we are 
called to speak of the duty of Christians, — 

I. As legislators. We have already assumed that the 
proper functioa of civil government is to protect the people 
in the exercise of their natural rights. And by natural rights 
we mean, the right to life, unless it has been forfeited by 
crime; the right to liberty of action, save when it wrongs 
others; and the right to property regarded as the fruit of 
one’s labor, except what is due to the State for its protection. 
It may, then, be remarked, — 

(1) That legislators should make the laws as few and plain 
as possible, without leaving the rights of the people unpro- 
tected. This rule appears to us of great importance. Laws 
for the people should be founded on the plainest principles of 
equity, should be couched in simple, unambiguous language, 
and should be carefully made known to all whom they con- 
cern. Hence they should be few. The tendency in many 
States to multiply laws, and the details of law, is to be 
deprecated. 

(2) That they should require the people to contribute, 
according to their several ability, for the support of the gov- 
ernment. In the word “ability’”’ we include personal power, 
and therefore approve of assessing a poll-tax on those who 
have no property. But the principle which we have stated is 
believed to be of little or no value by many legislators, and is 
set aside (a) by indirect taxation. This is defended, first, 
because it conceals from the people generally the amount 
which they pay for the support of government; and, secondly, 
because it lays the burden of civil affairs on those who 
indulge in luxuries. But it is well for both rulers and 
people to feel the cost of government is our reply to the 
former argument; and it is wrong for the State to discrimi- 
nate against the rich or the self-indulgent is our reply to the 
latter. (4) By exemption from taxes. This is defended on 
the ground that certain kinds of property are used for ends 
coincident with those of the State. So also, we reply, is a 
vast amount of property which is not thus favored; and a 


414 Christian Ethics. 


principle which can only be applied very partially is unsafe. 
(c) By adjusting the taxes to the cost of protection. Looked 
at from a simply business point of view, this might seem to 
be just; but there would be no end to special legislation, if 
this principle were applied, and no end to the study which 
would be necessary in order to apply it fairly. 

(3) That they may, and perhaps should, require the people 
to be educated physically, mentally, and morally in early life, 
in so far as their health will permit and the ends of good 
government demand. But it seems to us that the State has 
no moral right to tax the people for the support of colleges 
and professional schools, with the exception perhaps of mili- 
tary and naval academies. For the higher schools of learn- 
ing are sure to be supported by the liberality of good men; 
and, from the nature of the case, only a small part of the 
people will enjoy their advantages. 

(4) That they should make no'laws for the support of 
religion, or the forms of religion. Men can neither be bribed 
nor compelled to worship God. Christ and the apostles 
made no appeals to the State for support. The language 
and conduct of both are a sufficient warrant for the statement, 
that the Christian religion should do its work by moral and 
spiritual means alone. 

(5) That they should prohibit no form of worship which 
respects the rights of men. This is but a corollary from the 
preceding.* | 

(6) That they may forbid ordinary labor on the Lord’s Day 
for such reasons as these; namely, (a) that all may have the 
amount of rest which is favorable to health and long life; 
and (4) that those who desire it may be able to worship God 
undisturbed. . 

II. As judges and jurymen. It is the duty of judges to 
decide all questions and cases, properly brought before them, 
according to the constitution and laws of the land; and they 
should not permit any considerations whatever to turn them 
from this course. Should it become their settled conviction 
that the laws which they are called to expound and maintain 


Conduct with Reference to Other Men. 415 


are morally wrong, they ought doubtless to resign their 
office. 

Nearly the same may be said of jurymen. They are 
bound to weigh properly the evidence which is brought 
before them, and then to render their verdict according to 
law and evidence. Both judge and jury are to remember 
that they are not law-makers, but simply interpreters of law, 
or of law and evidence. 

Intelligent and upright men are needed for judicial action ; 
and Christians should not refuse to serve the State, even 
though they must do so at a considerable pecuniary loss. 
Yet we have long believed that judicial service deserves a 
larger compensation than it receives in our land. Especially 
difficult is it to secure the right kind of men for jurors, at 
the rate of compensation fixed by law; and this is a serious 
obstacle to the administration of justice. There is much 
reason to fear that trial by jury is forfeiting in a measure the 
confidence which it has enjoyed. 

III. As executive officers. In their own sphere these are 
bound to carry into effect the laws of the land, as interpreted 
by the proper authority. And, in respect to laws which are 
believed to be incompatible with natural right or the plain 
requirements of God, the same remark may be made as was 
made in speaking of judicial officers. When a man cannot 
conscientiously execute the laws, it is time for him to resign 
his office. 

The pardoning power, lodged in the hands of certain 
executives, should be used with the greatest caution. Per- 
haps it would be safe to limit its exercise to cases when new 
evidence of very great importance comes to light after they 
are decided, and removed from jurisdiction of the courts. 
The people should never be taught to presume that the 
penalty of the law will not be executed. Indeed, the most 
obvious remedy for injustice upon the discovery of new evi- 
dence would be to submit the case to a fresh trial. 

IV. As reformers of government. It seems to us very 
evident that Christian men may attempt to secure a change 
in government, — . 


416 : Christian Ethics. 


(1) Whenever the government does not acccmplish in the 
best manner practicable its legitimate ends; whether it 
fails to do this (a2) through the unfaithfulness of its officers, 
in which case they will seek to substitute better ones for 
them; or (4) for the want of good laws, or the existence of 
bad ones, in which case they will seek to have the laws recti- 
fied; or (c) owing to the nature of the government, as not 
adapted to the age or nation, in which case they will seek to 
effect a revolution. 

(2) Provided always, (a) there is a reasonable prospect of 
effecting in the end more good than evil by the effort, and 
(6) there is no reason to believe that a better opportunity for 
effecting the change required will be likely to occur. In 
other words, the change must be right, practicable, and 
timely. 

_ The extension of the legal rights of suffrage to women 
seems to us needless, undesirable, and unnatural; needless, 
because women can influence legislation sufficiently without 
voting ; undesirable, because voters, and candidates for office, 
would thereby be doubled with no prospect of advantage to 
the State; and unnatural, because the distinctive tendencies 
and duties of women disqualify them for civil affairs. 


SCRIPTURAL INDEX. 


MANUAL OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY AND CHRISTIAN ETHICS 


PREPARED BY EDM. F. MERRIAM. 


The figures refer to pages. Those followed by an asterisk (*) indicate passages not merely referred to, 
but commented upon. Those followed by (sq. ) denote that the verse is there referred to, together with the 
following context. The references are to the Hebrew and Greek texts unless otherwise specified. LXX de 
notes reference to the Septuagint. E.V.to the authorized English version (K.James). Where several 
verses are joined they are indexed according to the lowest number. 


Gen. i. Ath o erercters 89, 99, 111 Gen. 3.9. AS Asan Snot 173| Ex. xxxv. 35: 
a se cE 90 zoe Ibe ae ede 173] §* xxxvi. 25: 
oe ss 4020. ce cece 161|Ley. iv. (Passim,) 
“ di scoot. SIRO Hasenaser 105) “ “ 20: 26: 31: 35: ..214 
3 s UG lo areb nist basal 214) “« 


“cc 
“ 
“c 
“c 
‘6 
66 66 
“ce “a . ett . . “cc 
6“ 


“cc 
“cc 


“6 
“cc 
“e 
“cs 
oe 
“ec 


..240, 242 Gn 


418 Index. 


Dette ld ec eriscaet <i 261/1 Kings viii. - aareisieae sees 93) Pa. lylils Asie cn specimen 
<< xi ASG pyle ee oe «e141, 294) “ 
CORE. <b tn ty Liles a ae bd ne Sqn agee 161| 2 
sort so.ghbe es Lest ae «6 xi. 29:.....387 (Sq.)| #¢ Be. 
OPES Gh Res (oe eS @ xii, 13.254. 3887 (Sage) ae 12-14: 00... 380% 
«xv. 12-18: 16: 173.400 (EOS EXER One een eieoiee 112) « as 18:.....105, 112, 174 
(6) xvi. 103 10 0) 400 6 XXII. 21:.105, 110 (sa) as ooo 184* 
“ xviii..20: 21: Oo C8 2D Sincere “ 
OSI Sel eas ewe BORfa BUOPS: BORE eon ene "80 st 
ie. ost et ES encase Ct [LocOmie  bheT DIR SA ne -.. 317| “ 
“ “s 389 (sq.)| 
LIES, cee oer -240| « 
he 2:81) 4 SPL Oshieeiegereia “404 as ” xxi. igs 103, 115, 115] “ 
16) We ..222, 264, 264* ae as 1416: ~eL05}| < - 
‘© xxix. 10-12: -400, 400|2 Chron. vi. 18:........... 90} ** Ixxvi. 11:.....20<9-905 103 
(Oo xxx.) .6: 139,245,246, 368 CR sb dat Grddeaa se - 261) * Lxxvili: 18237 s.ce sees ca eee 
OOK As LOIS Sinn act,x ate 400 = B.S. Fes ARS ina 240) <6 a OS renue neae eee 
ee XXxil, i : : 
“ 
“ “ 
oe “c 
ib c..G00 ey 408 
OSD GS GE cicieiadiaieisie ota 
6 Wis eosacoecc 
«@ viii. 33-35 
ae bag MULE SSB AS oSS oe Ac 
Judg. ii ; 
& iii. 10:.. Ur eenpan ee 
Tea 
“ Min me ilsorone 
“ “ce 
“cc ue 
OF 1 ceinieveoradh otale 
1Sam'l “ii ft 
x. 9-13 
“é xi . 
“ “cc 
NGL 235... 0. 281] XXXViii. 7: ase 100, 106, 108 
LY iii . Ce au (Passim,)........ 
sé 2: 
“c 
“cc 
“ 
“ F 
es “ 14:.105, 110, 2, 104: 130: 165:.....278 
“exxxvil 1-205 sc. eases 94 
66 CAG 23% 05 PRE Biv ln siaietoetaerateoD. 
« =Xviii. 6:.388, 389, 3 Cig to Fadia sual ote 
( “cexxxix, ms eee anaes ae 
Us CO AO Sierercvae 105, 110 SOs 
a bb OM RSE Oaape ae 105 “ 
SEF SRI ato eval mca 387 oa 
“xxiii. 10-13:. .93 “ exliii. 
«¢ Xxviii. 11-20:. : ce 
CUB Ou bey fer) 2 “ exlv. 
2Sam’!l i. : Ke 
C vi. «© exlvil )Asccnegennte 
Ke Walls © exiviiy 202. cpegenas 
Lt Prov. i 
“ “ “ 
iii c ii7 
Ci meat a 
<e Xiy, “ 
“cc XV. “ 
Gate. 'p0 15 11: as 
“cc Xxi “e 


« xxiv. 1: ate se 
1 Kings ili. 12 Sancnaos 240 bi 
iv. 29:....240 OE: Mf fe se 

9:.. 


“ “ 

“ “ 

“ : 909 « «gone 
«“ ~~ & 32/999. 964, 264* MR SL Ia a. 


“ “ a 19: 
Jer. ere Game = 
“ ‘“ “ 28: 
“a “ ““ 32: 
“ “ “ 33: 
“ “ “ 37: 
“ “ ‘“ 
“ “ “ 
“ “ce xi. 
“ 2h “ “ 
“ 90 . “ “ 
6 Rxive Tei, 46] iv, 8: eI EV)! « « 


7:.... 91, 182, 237 
.-108 (sq.) 115, 
[191 (sq. 206 

194 


“xxxviii.18: 19: -158, 15 Ieceeeeeeeee 
xl 7: 62 iti Sess 2558224 
ef : 90 “s Caeeis'essaee~s 
-- Poste = ASO TT CR > 1 Cee 
“ 
“ 
225: 161 
xii. ..113 (sa) “eS 
So SS RS TR a ay b See eee “will. 
Tot: | ps Ste eee ee eee us 
=a 2-- 113, 1137, 174) “« 
Sak) ese MISS ara BEE 
xiii. 2: ted 351, 351, = Pome «% 
eds 3:. =e = 


pee BREED 


y 


{ 


ra 
bn 


420 


Matt. xi. 
“é 


6c 
ce 
“cc 
sé 
sé 


Index. 


20-22:. +258, 8 Matt. LK, wp LO Sew nie eee seers 95 Matt. xxvi. ie ecece sAZl, 281 
H wu Ps 650 +1168, 179, 324 
(300(sa, pes en 


te ee 36 
t...-105, 109, 114 
B4: B6:.......- 576 


56 

Gita oees cand 

19:.235, 236%, 249%, 

[254, 256, 303, 320%, 
323%, 


i sq. :...152, 160, 359 

aes 59] « &  31:179(sq.) 185, 348] « 

eeatelatatere! ae 58 [(sq.) 354 (Sq.) 355* ae 
sq. 


9: 
10:.. 1103, 108, LOD Ry Ste 58 
(113, 113%) « Se 40: 885 
. 301 (sa.) 304 66 66 AL Opa AG), 
304 [152, 157, 159, 358 
“ “ -43-45:.....,. B56* 
ss 6 46: 124, 152, 157, 
[ 160, 165, 352, 358, 
ee 359, 362, 
i AR 


aon ae :254,256,393"/327 


Luke i 
“ “ 
“ce “ 
6 “ 
“cc “ 
“cc “c 
“ “ce 
ce “ 
“ “cc 
“c “ 
“ec “ce 
“ “ 
Cs east 
“ 6c 
“ce “ 
“ce “cc 
“ is 
sé iii. 
ee 
6é 
“ 
“ 
cc 
“ 
“ 
“ 
“ee 
iT 
“ 
“ 
“c 
“ 
6c 
“c 
sé 
“ec 
“ 
“cc 
“ce 
“ce 
“cc 
“ 
“cs 
“ 
“ 
‘“eé 
oc 
“cc 
6c 
“ 
“ 
sé 
“cc 
oo 
ae 
it “ce 
iii “cc 
“cc “c 
“ce “ 
bie 
“c “ec 
“ sé 
“ ce 
“ec “ 
“ce sé 
“ “ce 
Sex 
“cc “ 
“c its 
“cc “ 
66 6é 
“cc “ 
oc ity 


3: 
6: 


1191, 194, 207* 
is ba (54) 82 


2 179,179 
... 1389, 368, 375 
[383 (sa.) 384 


374, 374, 407 


“ce 
6é 
“ 
“cc 
“ce 
“ec 
“ 
“ 
sé 
“cc 
66 
“cc 
“ce 
“cc 
“é 
“ 
“cc 


xiii. 
“cc 
xiv. 
“ec 
be 
66 
é 


348 (Sq.) 
22: “109. 295(Sq.)348* 


93:...157 (Sq.) 159, 
[ 164, 165, 346 (sq.) 
ogee ate 


35 Asjanosedeeos tte 
Bon scoeaade 358, 362 
Nevaie a celbieistetate 16 
PEAS PAIS SOOO DOG 58 
1: Ramon 281 (s 


20. gn ITA a 


9: 
1:...91, 185, 186, 


[186*, 186%, 
.-100, 185 
..185, 185% 
oe ORE 
1155, 185 
100 

2+ 245, 269 


138, 235, 242, 
[ 28, 246, 


231* 


i. 


421 


14:...55, 185*, 185, 
[ 185, 186, 191, 197*, 
232*, 401. 

16: 


aoe } 
[ 246, 254, 255%, 
03, 327, 

138, 141, 147, 
Tigo, 155, 235, 241, 
2AD*, 243, 246, 327 


rN ae 249) 397 
Sea 241, 249 
TOS eee 103 


11: 12:.........54 
iL, 194 


ie; . 94,98, 155, 186, 
[ 223, 228, 266. 
17:...174, 186, 228 
18:...163, 186, 223 
19:...144, 169 (sq.) 
93 373, 374. 


Pa Seat 372, 373 
3, Bae Se 314* 
opera 331 (Sq.) 


24 
96:...89, 202%, 244 
27 :191,200, 244, 354 
98:...244, 346, 351, 
: [ 351, 357 
29: . 244, 351, 351, 
[ 352, 354, 357, 362 


Sea cote 56, 91, 139 
abe . 37, 60, 114, a 
ek ete 
UA ence aaah 17: 


39:...159, 228, 299 
40:...179, 228, 268, 


[299 
AAT cvs sie 126, 244* 
BGS aco terins Se 54 
47:. -155, 262 
48:. ..155, 188 
OO tsratcrercmtettatets 17 
51:...179, 228, 385 
Deka kSwe aus 335 
54:... 155, 335, 351 
IDAs ep ee eB 155 


179 
63:.. --90, 155, 2 278 


58:...90, eh 181, 
[ 185, 194, 200, 202* 
94 


~) (Shetek canted 56, 179| Jno. 


“ 


SIDA t a sinaelanen 58 Jno, xvii. “15: Sos.sis aaa Dy MEO 
35: 36: 45: 46:..179 16:. 
47 


: 356 
6:.54, 188, 234, 337 
9:..177, 179, 202, 

[ 234 

10:.54, 60, 179, 198 

: bd 


16:...54, 67%, 67+, 
[ 234, 226%, 276 


17:.54, 67, 276, 278, 
401 

AS Poe, 54, 276 
20: 21:.54, 103, 276 
Pes Sodoononciede 54 
ZS ems 54, 55, 375 
7 Peis ereclcics 54 
26:...67*, 61*, 67%, 
[ 240 

SOs nxt 116, 116 


1:...155 ( (sd.) 227 
[isa ) 234, 269, 276, 


we 


.-155 (sq.) 269, 

[ 276, 296 

3. ..269, 276, 296 
:. -.234, 269, 276, 


3 
4 

296 
5:...126, 269, 276, 
6 


ea 7 
26:...67, 67%, 234, 
(226%, 236%, 240, 278 


CER ae 67, G7* 
1a: 67, 234, 236% 
ee ae ses 236* 
S11: -67*, 240, 241 
b Dem ees 116, 116 


12:...67%, 67%, 240 
13:..67%*, 67*, 256% 

[ 240, 242, 278 
aie See 179, 181 


“cc 
“ 


“ec 


-54 
54, 24, 278* 
54 


Assets 319, 387, 
388* 


Pot Ore te eA oir. 121 
29-363. <cisiceem 351 
33:..221*, 234, 234, 
[519 

at Srain caaeaege 256, 257 
87-41:......2-. 204 
38:...127, 265, 268, 
320, 325 

41:..303, 317*, 325, 
[ 332%, 341* 


42:.......536, 341* 
9 SDE vai. ee 


“ i. Taps] «ee 16:..954, 355%, Bra, 
“ 6s (313, 321, 324 
a 93:._ 301, 301, 308,| * xNii. 5s... 2 73, 73" 

[309,341 iv. 15 -- 351 


ie S 26: 27:.... 301.305 


i: 223, 2 
se, 8 ARE Ae sa. S165 
ps 164, (Sq-) 250 (Sq-) 


TS 32s. 


as 
ae 

ne 

am 


“ 
“ ee 
“ “c 
“ “ 
“ “ 
“ 
“ “e 
“ “<c 
“ a ae 
“ 
“ “< 
“ “ 
6 “ 
« & “ 
“ “< 
“ “< 
“ec “ wee 
as Lay OE ae et Lin 
“ “ “ “ ae --135, 141 (sq.) 
“ “ “ “ oh 266 
“ “ “ «< £23, 268 
“ “ “ “ 135 
« « grsedii. ae] «ee 2125, 
< : 71 [217*, 22, 264, =65, 
“ a > % 
C. <- aD: = = 212°, 
“ . [ 213*, 217*, 223, 
“ 267*. 
oy « §26:.215 £52128, 217" > 
s S [ 2223, 222, 2e4 
“ “ “« D 
“ “se “ 
“ “ 
“ “ «“ 
“ “ “ 
“ “ “ 
“ “ “ 
“ “ “6 
& “ “ 
“ “ “ 
“ a a 
“ “ a“ 


Index. 


°1:...155 nee Rom. viii. Ee thi a, nt Coes ii. SA | 


[ 26 Pp Ss SG 275 
Bee de 277 Om “ix, “ « 10: -68 (8q,) 91, 235 
Beare 103, 240 eK «ou sees ees235, 238% 
eee ee eee ee “ “ “ “ 
8:...147 (sq 5500 “ “ “ “ 
9:.145, 222 dop%,| «« “ 4“ : 
“[264, 265, 267*] 6 cc" 66; CSG SRe ae eects 
LN ca 229") « « “Gil, 1:2:.....138, 278 
122, .118(sq.) 140] « = « 6. OS Gane 


[(sq. 141 (sq.) 145 


ae s 16s soerngeaeaea 


(Sq.) 145, 146, 148,| “ Ks < a 
we 150 (sq. )'150. aC - as “ 
2 “19: Sinise valeiayala 147 x. fs as 
‘ oe iad “ 
wl “ “ “ 
“ “ “cc iv. 
. ' ie 66 “cc “c “ 
18:. «145, 145, 229, 
267*| « ‘“ “ “6 
19:...145, 145, 192,| ae «“s “ 
[222, 207" 229° 267* OS 20 
CRRA coil is alcaly? 9° a ae “ 
ln etasta ayaa £70} #6 oe as Vv. 
vemaaraahoysioc 265} * cs 98 oe ae 
inetale tains 255 (sq.)}| xii. 3:...241, 246, 246, Le oo 
2-14:....155, 243* [ 262, 275* xs Afi 
3:. .314, 315*{sq.) cs MG 4:...307 (Sq.) 386 “S < 335 
(321, 325 i ae a 13:. Saciieln + ..302, 302 
4:..245*, 314, "321, Oo 66 Wi. TOR ee ees 
825) | Sf 3 = A So che biete « -302 
Diiaicss..2ta", O14). as e con ‘264, ‘273, 313 
Gein eileinioktes 294; <« ae aS br pai eh area 
(Gizicinta(atalaiacchmtette 264) * a (6) Jae a eet eee 
Bic nie aimee 243%] <6 is 6) RGR oie ae (sq.) 
34, 243%) <6 a : 
-243*| “6 Ci 
265 ity Lid 
3, 136, 274) “ we 
265 “ec “ 
2. Se Seis ace 274) 2. 
PSO sajsravaiiontes HED) vines ae 
TAYE RAS Aes 2G5i se wy 
Se Aas 138, 373] “ as 
Dah wistolatels 156, 265) ‘ ee ¢ 4: :.. 141, 147, 329* 
UUW IRR ln eae Se ate ones 
SA AO Reena Uy le! Ee 68, 301, 304 
14: 18: 23:24:..138| ce i (Slelsin'\c<Jalnintetetaee 
md Seisraislcieisral a 246) “ fE .399 
3:.. 182, 191, 205%} “ Xvi. , 399* 
6:...138 (Sq.) 155,| “‘ ss 9:1. 307 23: 000+ 20-20-2289 
(4565166) sa as Seseevescnees DOL] ) & (SRS ee 68, 73* 
7:...143, 144, 155,} ** Se : 26:..389, 390*, 392, 
4 [156 “ “ ° : 392 
Bre seas 155,276] $ fs : : 28: 3..392 
9:....155, 182, 182, se : SAE icon 'aninvinieleol ipa 
[ 234, 288, 248, 276] ‘* ss : SOR sn cininauiaes See 
0:...155, 156, DAS IT, AE as istalsteluiaiermtetetd ere 403 .nia ean eee 73* 
iicoria: i wok ooblity Om 
as sf 89, 100, 182 
- 380 
“ “ 
“ce «“ 
“ “ 
“ “ec 
“cc “ 


Bee 64 (sq 
(244, 258, 259, ors Savage 
293. 182, 243, 299 LG so 


[X(SC5)))/ ae eeass [ 
80:...243, 244, 258, 6 97 3...4066.836, 840 
[264,265,266] « . 138, 5? OBB C68. QO sued Soeeenene 
32:...182, 218, 298,| “ « a 11145, 145,2097,] «© 9 = 915.1117, 182, 336 
234 [ 268} «© 6 . (OO, waaE ce 


[25 
$3:..222, 264,264", di, 2:........283, 238] © © OA ELL Ba GC 
[266 PSE S S68) as evra 248] © 6 98: 29:........ 380 


3:. ee 150, 2 238%, 


8: 
9:...237, 241, 242, 


TCE easseac 237, 242 
Pee 2237, 237, 242 
12:. 1.234, 301 (Sq.) 
[302(sq.1307*(sq. ) 
eae g ) 386 (Sq, 


9:.. es 380 
21:...118, 140, 166, 
190 


22;...118, 140, 141, 

{ 166 
232-0. sob (sq" ) 352 
4: 182, 352 


44;..120, 121%, 154, 

[ 346, 353, 353* 
45: ae 140 (sq) 154 
46: 4 154 


Bl: i346, 357,362 Ga ) 


Index. 


14:...227, 234, 374 
15:..139, 147, 219%, 
[ 228, 229%, 233%, 
934, 243. 
17:.. 234, 243%, 273 
9:.. 222, 223*, 228 
20:..182, 222, 223%, 
[ 228, 229*, 233, 233 
21:....56, 145, 147, 


52:....346, 352, a Gal. 
54s. 


425 


Tis 10 secs. 
ati (sq. y 73, “293 
cea Cate aes 


1... 98, 139, 182, 
[227,233*,234,243*, 
269. 


Crees 268 (sq.) 

a 8:....223, 264, 266 
tagicia. = = nsLOD, JAD 

at 


73 

- 113, 171, 174, 
[ 265, 373 

. .89 


«  26:.. 106, 223, 268, 
302 (sq-) 385. sa. , 


8: 

9:...258, 259, 278 

10:. 110", 111, 171, 
25! 


ne or ietaiekt 5 OT, 037% 
17: See Ne 274, 27 
ibs een 258, 278 
PAleamed ab ty 114, 182 
22:. Gh 182, 234, 
[302 
Dee eiaieinieia = ate 2 


iNsssncces5e52 156 
3:....141, 147, 163 


6 156, aoe 
Sikfalais a elelatsia (als 266 
8:...98, 245, 262, 


[ 266, 268 
nik BOnOOR On 98 
10:... 98, 126, 156, 

[ 284, 243%, 245 
Leer. 


20; -69, 91, 182 (sq.) 
»- 235, 237, x 


22:. 


18: 19:...275*, 324 
20:....98, 277, 324 
D1 eee eater 324 
22:,..390 (sq.) 394 


“[(sa- ) 394 (sq.) 
176 (sq.) 


“ 


302 
1 Thess, ii. 
269 ee 


“6 
“ 
“ 
“ce 
“es 
“ 


“cc 
iT) 


ce 
“e 
13 
“ 
“ 


2Thess. tT. 


“ 


sc 


Index. 


* 

ii. 3: 385 (sa.) 2Thess, i. 9:..182, 350* 
Baud 1.139, 4 [ 355, 357, 263 
“ — 6:....177, 182, is] 10:..182, 350*, 35 
ae ‘190, 197*, 198*| | 357, 36% 
“ 8: 

“cc 

iii. 

“se 

“ 

“ 

“ce 

iid 4 68 
“ 6:.68, 301, 302, 304 
a 10: 12:...2..... 68 
“ “ Md: os onic OSUGOD 
iv. I... Wtessumeaan . U8 
“ «“ B: 1.245, 254, 379, 
“ [381 
“ (610s ccna 324 
i, 6 13! 1G:.....+-- 380 
“ (7 eae 90, 90 
“ “ 19:...254, 303, 304, 
“ “ 90 BE | 
«“ ii. steee titer 8 
“ 6 Ors... 228, 410 
“ te grog eecee tunes 
“« Arcos. 84, O88 
“ “© Br.....89, 190, 298 
ii. €F NGS ronnleis cela ane 
“ «Tae faeces 
“ gt can cae 375 
“ “ 9: 10:....889, 409 
“« “  12:..301, 303%, 386* 
“ [389 
« : “ 13: 14:...386%, 389 
“ : “ 15:...274, 386%, 389 
iii, 3: & 49: 20:..2...., it 
M1 Qi RHE 20k sa.) “Gi, 1-7:......308, 386 
OG ea eam, “  “«-9:.308, 308, 309% 
“ | 68, 287, 304 if 

“ 304] 6. (eg eed 
Ti TORE ee 110, 115 
a “  & 82.307, 308, S00", 
iv. «  & — 9:, 254, 307, 312, 
“ "L379, 386 
“ & © 402. ,.....307, 386 
& — & 44:.1307, 308, 309*, 

“ [ 312, 387 

iii. 6 492.......307, 309* 

“ 66 455.22.1..301) 302* 

iv. « See 184*, 264 

oe 


“6 3: 974 
“© 432. 108 60.) Hi, fe 
i) 
«¢ 14:....347, 391, 3Bt ah 
“ : rT 
“ 
66 “ 
“ 
« “ 
aS oe Fanti: nev dies 156 
« Ci 66 "GE ceils ania 
y. st © 8:144,304, 394, 396 
“ os SF Gaeta RraRraReen 
“ a <6. 10s) satan ee 
“ os 86 Uae pei 116, 392 
“c “ 47: 


:..107, 350%, 352] «© «6 
[ 355, 357, 362) « « 
. 152, 350% ’352, “ “ 
[ 355, 357, 362) « 


=a 308 
1108, 109%, 110* 
32: 


oc eneeee GOLLY 


“ 


“ 11:. 2 


100, 182, 182 
:--.100, 101, 177, 
[ 182, 182, 234 
234 


o 

i pa see 175, 182 

« — 8:... 175, 182, 182 

Cay, a eae ape 

(Rene 182, 192 

OPS hE ia eae 

LOT bs eed Ra 89, 168 

& — 44:.1.103, 105, 108, 
[ 109, 112, 114 


ii, 2:.. 113, 136, 174 
60 


-. 116*, 191, 191 
=-A91*, 192, 194, 

"F905, 211, 212 
8: as 200, 205 


: 2 
...216, 218, 322 
14:...216, 218, 254, 
a 379, 381 

- 147, 166, 268 


160, 161*, 161 
Dae 274, 359 
3: 99 


17:. +301, 306, 308, 
[ 308, 


? 


Sax ames i. 


“ec 


“ce 
“ce 


427- 


- .254, 379, an 
rr 


4: 
ep -281, 282, (sq.) 
Boece ngdoosns 258 


2 +230, 237, 241, 


[246, 258, 274*,276* 
3:...155, 182, 184, 
[242*, 245, 246, 258, 
298%, 
AGNES Um ene 298* 
iaaeare 265, 298* 
ERE ES aR 161 
Soe iow: 157, 182 
se ee 69, 238 
11:....69, 234, 238 
Te 68, 69, 108 


0: 

21:..254, 254, 255%, 
(321, 323, 325*, 379 
22:,...114, 182, 234 


3: 
8:...110, 115, 115, 
[116 


1:..182, 228, 229% 
4:..109%, 110, 111, 
[111*, 169, 165, 165, 
si (sq.) 


o: -.160, 164, 165, 


- .68, 69 
a “182, 183, ae 


Dew eeeceeceee 85 


3...222, 234, 293 
2:...141, 147, 211, 


[212*, 220, 222, 
228*. 
WEL RR ae Sas. 244 
TRG ARS aonb 267 
1 GORE ANB a rome 116 
 raleie nm ciate 68, 116 
FBR nis cctowone 140 
LO erates 299% 
DOES sictaeitte 69, 274* 
RoSbitis ists aietels 186 
Pe pele Sininin ersatens 274 
29:. . 56, 242*, be 
A: Sjeacloetos 136, 3H 
ish oratainiole siete 5 
eareiaaned 111 


9:..249*, 243, 245, 
Be 246,248,262,293* 
116 


9:....98, 233, 266 


Index. 


“cc “cc 
“c “ 
“ec sé 
“ec “ 
“ it 
“cc “ 
“ “ 
ss Vv. 1:..242*, 245, 246, 
“ . “ec ( 
“cc o 
“cc “cc 
“cc “ec 
“ “ 
“ “ 
it} “ec 
“oe “ 
“ce “cc 
“ec “ce 
oe “ 
, 
CA ciyclOseeeenae 116, 116 
«6 203. .155, 186, 186, 
188* 
ee Sone AS Bisex aatioace 308 
‘ 
“e 
3 John 
Jude 
“ 
“cc 
“é 
“cc 
“ 
“oe 
Rev. i. 
“ce “é 
“cc “ 
“ “ce 
“ec “ 
iid “ 
oe ii. 
ce cs . 
COP TSE lice tas2oTe OAT 1S 
- s 8:. - 181, 309%, 348 
‘ec “ 348 
oc “ec 
“ “cc 
“ “ 
“ “cc 
“ “ec 
“ “cc 
“ iii. 
“ “ 
“cc “ 
“c 6c 
“ ee 
“cc “cc 
ss iv. 
ce “ . 
a A Lt eRe sasdoaocess 108 
ae “ As atau) siaintelslaisle at 


:...98, 211, 212*,| Rev. 
[ 233, 266} «§ 


Vo Deakin nae 2M; 2d 
« —11:...108, 109, 109, 
(114 


«cg aegis =r 
Ly 13: 14:. 
Viv: Beton 
WE PS 
Vitis SaRe 
Re OS Sain 
Vili, 2a6rsccoece. 114 
ix, + Adee eee 115 
x Be --108 
aS 6:. 90, 99 
xii, 3 116 
ie | .. 116 (sq.) 
“  %:...114, 116, 116 
ae 9:...111, 115, 116, 
116 
10:. 
2:4 


«  2:..,108, 111, 116 
“ 11108, 111) 115 
157 
“ 

iii 
“ ; : 
“ 10:. 10, M1 Eh, 
[ 159, 358, 359 
 — 11:....351 (8q.) 352 
U 10-15: e+ 226300, 3O8 
“ -12;...357, 358 (sq.) 
oa ie wins fais ye 348, 351 
6 ASS Ts 159, 348 
«  15:....159, 358, 359 
xxi, 1:...168 (sq.) 362 


{ (sq.) 
se” sesedags ie 


- 1 
- +160, 358, 359 
te 239) 241 


TOPICAL INDEX 


MANUAL OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY AND CHRISTIAN ETHICS. 


PREPARED BY EDM. F. MERRIAM.: 


Action, Right begins in Regeneration. 246 
Advent of Christ -171, 349 
Advice, when to be Sought............ 304 
Zésthetic Sensibilities, Cultivation of. 382 
Agassiz (Prof.) on the Distinction be- 


tween Mind and Matter............. 35 
” AAntiivoc used before O2dc- -----------+ 188 
*AVAYEVVGW)---+ +--+ +200 ceee cece cee cere 242 
Animal World a Product of Mind..... 34 
Angel of Jehovah.................-. 173, 231 
Angels, MANAG EOR Giist nach so casaae = c= 109 


Creation of 


“ “ 


112 


Good Bec coe oe 

a a of Bodiless.........-. 105 
« Evil and Pagan Deities .....- 117 
de Ta Gin SS ee cee 113 
re Knowledge of.............-... 108 
= Pel REN Stoica dhe ee peo 2 105 
a Number of Good............-. 114 
“ of the Seven Churches...... . 309 
a Organization 2H Fase 8s 116 
< *“ Good . -. 114 
es Power of 

« SOLE ee ee 

as NCES Sosccc5 cs. 

LUE iS ses AE REGS a eee enero 


Answer to Particu ar Prayers 

Antinomianism a Perversion. . 
? 

nT 2 hr eee ee 


Apollinaris, Theory of Incarnation ... 194 
Apostasy of Professed Christians .- 299 
Apostles’ Baptism ................. 333, 339 
= Example of an Authority for 
keeping the Lord’s Day.... 290 
a No Successors of ............ 312 
oy Practi e as to Subjects of 
DS VIMIS eS ato Sa Ee 325 
Apostolic Churches, Communion °s 
- Language concerning Bap- 
SLT She 5-6 =o B Bo esa 
Arminian Confession on ey 
Depravity suse sees a. cc 
ae Theory of the pai 
DU SDN Agss6 eee 1 


Aspirations of Man point to Endless 
Existence 
Associates of Apostles. Books had the 
Sanction of =o alas = 

ae «© Apostles es obaee 
Athanasius... .. eee 
Attention to ‘Gospel. necessary to Re- 
peneration.:..\c.-----s-e-.c0- wetcees 256 
A.vonement, Definition of.............. 224 


125 


se eeee 


Atonement, Illustrated God’s Benevo- 


i ee ee 218 
a Illustrated God’s — 

SESS SE ee = 217 
= Method OF. .2.- > cuss. <sac0 226 
“ Moral Power of...232, 233, 234 
oe WIGHTIONS 2.0006 e ewes once 210 


Augsburg Confession on Baptismal Re- 
generation. 253 


~~ = “ Hereditary De- 
pravity..... 142 
LATS Wi) Baas Seen soe ee 18 
~ on Freedom of Will........ 93 
Augustinian Theory of the Imputa- 
EG PST Se a ee a oe 148 
Ba (Bs Sa) cs. on domeacametemens cccnwe —_ 
Baptism, Administration of........... 223 
Circumstances of ........... 314 
Ke Concessions of Pedo-Bap- 
BS) SR donc Cee ee ae 316 
We Form Necessary ............ 319 
= Wormuka Ob. - c.55-sce- conn 320 
J not a Substitute for Circum- 
CISIOH ends epee -- 32 
of Holy Spi -- 319 
a Peter's Deiinition of ........ 254 
- Preceded by Repentance.... 254 
as Prerequisite to Communion 
338, 340 
a Relation of Christian to 
PONDS: 3 2 -iosc~ sees saeens sees 330 
= Relation to Lord’s Supper .. 338 
<. MEIGS ls Coc ce eeineeeansios ove 313 
= Cg Ee 314 
= Significance of .............. 320 
= BUEDECES OF. soeaen cb ae able 323 
o Subordinate to a CRenNE = 254 
= When it may be Omitted.... 256 
Baptismal Regeneration .............. 252 
Bax7iCo Transferred ..........-. 200+ 318 
es USS Diss os sb SSce santos steers 313 
Basle, Confession of on Hereditary 
Depravity..-- .- 2. .<oeec=s---s<n0s--20 142 
Belief in Christ prerequisite to Com- 
OU GP oS “$85: Fo sete espace eee 337 
Believers, Final State of .............. 362 
- in Middle State............. 348 
ae only Entitled to Baptism... 323 
Bellamy, J: oseph be eecu cbc oattere seems 24 
EN ALIEN (he) eee ees o-cab se coon ete ok ae 22 
Benefits of the Study of Theology. . 15 
Benevolence, Benefits of...... ........ > 406 
= Definition of ............ 406 
‘ 
“ 
“ce 


430 Index. 


Benevolent Enterprises, How Prose- 
CHEE Oe cemcaninedise nei meee si 3 
Bernard on Union with Christ 271 

os Paraphrase of Lord’s Prayer. 279 
Bible, Arguments of not Unsound . 84 
“¢ does not contain Bad | heology. 86 

Af pee y oy as Contradictory 
Statements. 85 


xe Hi CD «False Prophe- 
C¥peeipwetaasiale 86 
sf “« = teach Rad Morality.. 86 
«False Interpretation of......... 84 
Use hides, Coys WE Seog eyaceee “oe ae 43 

“ Historical and Scientific Teach- 
mites 0} ES anriee Mabecoboacnba sas: 80, 81 
«Objection to seinen each of.. 83 
“Obscure Language of........... 84 
« Religious Teaching Gb 80, 81 


Biblical Writers enlightened by God. 39 
Bibliolatry not a Result of a Belief in 


PRS PENA TOE oo aor rate nln Ml e/esalpicjuie nue apes 83 
Biedermann (A. E.)............. - 26 
Bishops same as Elders.. . 309 
Blotting out of the Wicked. - 162 
Bodies, Resurrection of . . 353 
Bodily Powers, Cultiv ation of.. oe» Ob2 
Books, Economy in...............2..-. 410 
Breaking Bread from House to 

HLOUSO lajad cise oicinstwine ra ceisinieea/oainin nee 341 
Breckenridge (R. J.).. oh Bee yt 
Brothers, Duties :0f 5. ....5sei0~<n 0 cee cnee 397 


“Brought to Nought”’ said of the 
Wicked 1 


Buddeus J Do seaene ss es Arsoue nen 
Ty hh Aun Coy Sidocsnmrecoecnaecserinsee ace 
- *¢ on Final State of Believers. 363 
“ é 6 «¢ Union with-Christ...... 271 
Burning up of the Wicked............ 161 
Business Relations...........-+.-...00. 403 
Butler, Bishop, on the Atonement . 224 
« « Evidences of 
Christianity Hache sod dona brace aah 
Cal ing to Christ........ > 
Calvin (GUS Bacn sees 


“ “on Union with Chr 
Caly inistic Theory of the Imputation 


OES een sieeeeeereiaes Silsiginlepelenieaers 1 
Capital and Labor, .........-.....2..2s 405 
Catechismus Racovianus, on Heredi- 

tary Depravaty.'-scpee cca ccnp vives as ea es 
Causality, Relation to Tay ey 
Chadbourne (Pres.) on Conscience .... 32 
GhalmersiCUNGA:)? can succes tceseactesinnesa 23 
Children Blessed by Christ............ 328 

a Duties to Parents........... 396 


as Holy by Virtue of Parents.. 329 
Choice, Morale sen adel necenemiwene ce 
Choirs, Economy in......... 

Christ an Advocate 


$6.0 4 IDOLDY NO hve lariaeiels bcieteaatctaen dette 
es eK “his own Language 
concermming ......... 78 
3 oe “Language of New 
‘lestament Writers 
concerning.......... 181 
Oo: as “ Proved from Old Tes- 
TAME. ose ode ce 
= 68." Doctrine Of Vasececn vausranscieas'c 
ae Government by....... 
Gh InGarnatiGa Disk sep ws a encanto nen 
« — Interceding with God 
<< Mediatorial King ........ 2... 234 
Si) CRCESONIOE. eos ene es peinesianen 172 


«« Personal Oneness of ........... 192 


Christ, Relation to Spiritual Death}... 

Revelation by..... 
«Second Adveut of.. 

« Source of Justification 


ss a “ Pardons 3 
ee « = 6 Repentance . « 
as ‘« <« Salvationcecseesee y 
«Suffered for Others Spinitu- 
ally... .... scecs amen cece ececece 
«Time of Appearance. 
«the Final Judge" scneneseeasaene 
Ke “ Giver of Spiritual Life.... + 
<6 66 PreS€rVeE bese sien eeaaeeaee 


6c Troly Maaii cesses cecacccce I 
«« Unity with the Father ........ 180 
a _, Work of 


Christianity, Beginning of 
Educates aha Conscience, 381 

Christians not Divided into ‘'wo 
Classes in Sanctitication............. 
Chureh Buildings, Economy i in. 
Definition (Of\3.-0nees 
«Lite promotes Sanctification. 286 

«of Engiand on Baptismal Re- 


generation. ..2.. 0b seskenenee 
«© Qualification for Reception 
INCO 000s so nels oe alee a 


« Relations.. Pets t's 
“ Selection of Officers of........ 304 
ou Walk (orderly) prerequisite to 


Communion ...... a sis SSE ire 
Churches, Combination of............. 306 
ae Mutual Relation of......... 305° 


as FON est. baa by Apos- 
TIES |. ccisise ape eaae 
Cicero on Freedom of Will . 
6 40 TBW cule waco Saws ane 

Circumcision practised in mers 
ChurChegis\<cca0<usisseianneae 
as Subjects ote 
Civil Relations ...... aes 
Clarke, Sapa ee sae eee 


Communicants, lroper - 
Communion fitted bye pt 
Couduct Modified b narteaan of 


Knowledge..-.. Bony oe c eveee BID 
“6 with Reference to God ...... 375 
Cs “« One’sself. 378 


ee “ “ 


“ Other Men 


Confessio Remonstrantium on Heredi- 
tary Depravity.<. .-.-caees-eeeeee eee 142 

Confession of Sins in Baptism one sean Goa 

Conscience condemns Sin Always.... 361 


oS Cultivation of ............. 380 
ss Is it aSep. rate Faculty ?.. 96 | 
Ke Judicial Office of...... eves 319 
ne Verdict of......... 371, 379, 380 


“ “e 


on Penalty of ’Sin. 164 
Consistency Saat apna by 
Church Life 


Gouvienon of Sinfulness necessary to 
Regeneration ..5: 2.5. ...0c.e eee --. 256 
Cook, Joseph, on the Trinity .......... 239 
Co-operation > eiatths s) ajalohinteiateee clonn'sacie! 40D 
Cousin on Existence of God........... 41 
Corinthian Church, Practice in coe 


INUIMION!. cece nemesis oa ocbin omelets 340 
Cutting Off of the ‘Wicked sxe epee wens, LOL 
Création by God....2... |). -.sccnsameennrees 


& Order of.. es 


a ne ae 
‘sear 


eS Oe 


Index. 


Cyril, Theory of Incarnation.......... 195 
Dage (I. Ln) eee ee eee eee 23 
Darwinian Ey poines Morice spsiats slereeisiare 19 
Davison on Inspiration of the Bible... 86 
PPEACONS, DUIS OL sce enlen occu scene. : 307 
Os SGl€ CEO OLE clepsince lo aiciesialciainn 
Dead, Resurrection of the............. 
De: ath, AAT?) WiCW! OL. wsiselsciwiiee nies 


as the Penalty of Sin 
“« Penalty of Sin chiefly Spiritual. a8 


Cis SIE RUB RAN ERR Ae Saco decomantpouend 345 
se *¢ the Penalty of Sin ..... 166 
us “  Sufferings of..... «» 164 
« not Extinction of Being 157, 158 
« of Christ a Necessity .......... 218 
Ser hpy £6 «| a Propitiation ....... 211 
ere see sas a Revelation...... 232 
BOR Ss «in Reference to In- 
PANG aes wee eels nae 230 
merece ss made it Possible for 
God to treat Men 
with Favor ........ 222 
Death of Christ Substitutional........ 219 


*«< Suffered Voluntarily. 218 

« « « Symbolized ey Bap- 
tism 
«Separation from God . 
“« Spiritual naturally Permanent 166 


SESS DUNG TAL WIOBE =: \sinfele!a'cie onic nines 156 
Defensive War Justifiable.-........... 412 
DIEIHY OMOBTISE. ce cas secs es cccisane cae 172 

““é “ “ec 


not Separate from the 


Fathers 
eee TNO PELOLY IOP LELG eleieici sic .cie eicleleru 
Demons, Casting Out of................ 
Us Possession by ........ 
ID Grevayeere (BY Sag5 coor bponosne Hopdeccdan 
Depravity, Hereditary Views of 
141, 142, 143 
aa Relation to Responsibility. 134 


Desire to be Saved necessary to Re- 


PONMETALION « .ciecceccnsncenecccevceeve 257 
Desires not Always a Safe Guide...... 384 
ANSE TES fetes a/aicleiate/eibieta\eimicieisieie e(alelefalslsio's 
PES HMC ELOM mee lcelciniwn cece sin'ele 
Devoured, the Wicked to be. 

Dichotomy Reeratentictem citeter cise 
Meas Same iasicinlcd ak tints sie Gia a Aclcpeiayelarsine'e 23 
Discernment a Fruit of Regeneration. 261 
from Holy youth Ahedoasn 274 
Discipline a Means of Sanctification... 276 
q Causes for ....... EAE cette 30+ 
es In CHUICHES. cic winin/-'5 0s 301, 304 
Discretion in Benevolence. ............ 408 
Disposition necessary to Salvation... 269 
POUR Ole rsinttisisicisiaia Misiaivicimetsieinis sels vieja ciate 394 
Domestic Relations.............0.00005 391 
Dorner, Theory of the Incarnation ... 200 
Dress, Economy i AM. eee e eee sees eee eee 409 
Drink, Se et en olatateatinptsenlctay sy ah nitare abv: 2 409 
Dwight on the Grouta of Right ...... 370 


Early Churches, Baptismal Practice of 315 
Practice in Commun- 


Toy Soa0 ue AaneUaRoS 343 

“ ae Practice in Reference 
to Lord’s Day ...:.. 290 

ih iG Practice on Infant 

Baptism |:..>-...c-. 33 

cs ae Subjects of Baptism. 326 
Ebrard (J. HW. A.) .......... Oey os 26 
Economy, Duty of......... sialajajs|eis'\e\sia/a 6 409 
Education, Compulsory..............++ 414 


eeeaacan Theory ot the Imputation 
146 


Edwards (J.) on Visi aehaaboecedass Sun es 
éi¢, €v, EX, Use in Connection with 
Baptism 35 Supa oneo unaucerascobsdds san 


éxkAjoia, Use of.......-.-- Arie ene) 
Elders, 2 puointment of . 
-O not Two Classes of 
Election Dependent on Atonement.. 
Ibyoro AG) ONT Aston cs sasdaedadee 
ne INGEN Penh. ce es cei s lees oo v0 
Os Just 
oe not Unequal 
0. Reason of notin Man........ 
Elements, Use of in Lord’s Supper ... 
Ellicott on Trichotomy 
Employees, Duties of 
Employers, Duties Of ............-..005 
Endless Punishment, 
BS BbUS oaeho Aséouten spe saa0ened abodes 3 
Episcopalians on Baptismal Regener- 


MAO) Saab cord dopdeSoo Doce bacoudeondodc 253 
Episcopius (S.) .....--.sseeeeeee eee e eee 21 
Equipage, Economy in ....... 409 
Equity, Duty OSS Ak oscncas 
Errors not Taught in Bible . 

Ethics, Christian, SASISUOLe sities mieerais 
Definition of ....... 367 

co Study of follows Theology .... 367 
EIMANPCLISES er ietemeeersist a sictsetercietlieretelelate 312 
Evidence, Definition of ....... peed 

as Grounds of Probab. . 12 

Ue SINGS Of vecete ain oes ang 4 

& Mi) Propablesensnees « we 

ae WEI ores inde detiaodee sooq0ueS 12 
BVI, EXISTENCE) Ofc jewicn aie aieisiclsclenilcseicie 98 
‘ God’s Relation to.............- , 102 
“© rather than Good in the World” 32 
Executive Officers, Duties of .......... 415 
EXencise DULY Ofjee- saree cemeceniee 883 
Faith a Fruit of Regeneration........ 262 

RENE nite niecOmsOVv Oh easeciciesaeee see 266 

“not Obedience or Righteous- 

ness 


“ Relation to Conduct 
“ the Condition of Justification 


223, 263 
Falling from Grace.................... 296 
Father, Precedence of the ........... 80 
F eeling as Source of Moral Character. 126 
Hellowship, (Caio nn Bos Aa ane Ade eee ere 344 
Me mmae NS Wiha MCs wy cletelcm) ajelsielpelsieloete wai 416 
Final State, Continuance of ...... 358, 362 
ca «Time of Beginning... 358, 362 
lpm ye((Ob Cr) 556308 soso oesonene saan ee 
Flesh a aera to Christ 2 198 
Fonts, Size of Barly......2....2-eee sees 318 
Food, Economy in .........--.0..5 00+ 409 
KE UTI A Oe eles = late tatarsicie eielarcterelocotioweyolaie 382 
Force, One Original ............-...... 28 
Forces of Nature, God’s Relation to .. 282 
Forgiveness of SHS oo 5s 267 
Freedom OL NVA Gee eeinteiiera eters cicine 132, 133 
«+ in Regeneration..... 247 
an IPersonellije cits seer ssiste a 93, 138 
a IPreLerablelcereceecesiciies «cele 399 
Fruits of the Spirit... 275 
DUP GE a eb hob oaeedeos seonos 


a ** on Union with Christ... 
Furniture, Economy in 
Genennaperenuccarcriesctoseeteeeniecte 
YEVUGD) sins ajeieinee sicicine sas. 
(tdci hin G io) Agen do emoa mor ope ere Abereoe 
Gess, “Theory of imcarnation:. : 
Ga TE ais ajclele caries 
God, ‘Attributes of .. 

“© Author of Justifi 


432 
God, Author of Regeneration ....... 
Benevolence of...... iciaiatgisiaia’el eta ae 
a Creation |by....-----=--5 aerate 
40> te rnity, Of 6. cede cu acienisesiaciele 90, 
Cs Existence Git Kore onsacasartnecedsc 
ve “Anthropologi- 
cal Argument for. 
2 a ae Spud Arguiment 
“ a « Christological Ar- 
gument for ...... 
<6 oe * Cosmological Ar- 
gument for ...... 
se € « Teleological Argu- 
ment for........ 


© Expression of Opposition to Sin. 
“Grace of 


«Hatred of in Hearts of Men..... 
«6 Tonmutabiliby OF <1. 0. scene 89, 
«¢ “Tndependence of-:...........-. 89, 
AUISICO Olse cae ceennelecias = micieniasee 
Qa IIOP ASG: soddsoo ded soasecods 
«¢ Modes of Existence of.......-.... 
SS QmMniISCIENCO OL... -- +2 ones nc 93, 
se OmNipOteneo, OF |... sin.0 s-.sce cel 
«c ‘Omnipresence Of -..:...-..... 90, 
a) © JPati@ni@G Ofe\<'sesciein! sicielsicla oe) holeicinin 
ae Perfections Cli Soba Bacacacasoeroada 
sf not Limited. . 

y Poreaeelihy Ol codohsensonsanp sore 
6 “Preservation DY «.-< ..c0.ce2ecee ne 
a Eroudencs OL Soonscgs snoocaneecdd 
£ teh isAp across soe aran Sadanoue 
Ke oie ities of Knowledge of....... 
« Righteousness of 94 


“« Sensibility of. . 
«Spirituality Of: 
«Timeless Being of. 
66 ADEN OL. wc/atiel <a> da cst sain 


ANTE VION Gs tes pncaceiccee oan eee 
«Use of Word sete 
Re IONE NO Les ale ral ats skoteie gas ciaeyetsict jwiate HS 
BE) HWY AS GLOSTIN O fy erate aielays'aitinla'e/ejetaisl oie rants 


Godhead not comprehended in One 


IPETSOB Is cistoet> = satseia cies anton vied a aeiniers 
Golde RWG is! -s0r=-5-ceece oes 383, ee 
Government an Ordinance of God. 

‘ Dy Christ fre -tajaiv cles oes 
un Duty of Prayer for...... 
oe HOrMm) OG. a.0cnienenmas dante 
& IRGLORMISHIELS weeis sieioie sieicvain 

Grace, God’s Conditioned and Re- 
vealed by Death of Christ........... 


Grace, Relation to Conduct.. 

Greek Church, Baptismal Practice of. 
Green (T. S. ) on Johni., 1 
Grotius (H.) 
Ground, oece nee of a Result of Sin . 
Guericke (H. E. F 
Hades, Christ did ‘hot Visit 
ao Pananeee of Christ and Peter 
Hamilton ( (win. )on Will and Feeling. 
Happiness of Believers Bina. vee asp 
* according 

to Fidel- 

ibyin cen 

Happiness of Believers Increasing.... 
Hardness of Ground a Result of Sin.. 
Ease (C% AL) LS fae sivas aterinnd Dake nna 
Hebrews, Authorship of Epistle to.... 
Heinrich (J. B.). 
Hetplessness, a Feeling of necessary 
to Repenersiion 
MAE PHOS) seca sie iaseis ote maine aise sicletateone 
Hickok on Ground of Right .......... 


Index. 


. 246 | Historica] Errors not Taught in Bible. 
. 9 Hodge (A. As) ineeas 


eee meee meee eee 


(G.) +. ss 008k See acca 
95| Hofmanu J. ses ROPIOA CAR ens 
27 « @&.)- chee eeeeeeseesecee 


42 Of MeM .... 2.00. ese eeee ence ee senee 


40 Person . 


« ~~ alluded tobyN. “P. Writers 
42 aS & Pers@n) << 2sjeceseearaloain 
« «Author of Regeneration .. 246 
41 | # ss « me a6 Satna 274 
“6 Deity of ....- eas s0ir.ainisieans CORD 
42 “ « = Doctrine Of 2c eee. stn eoatale (eee 
8 “6 «Given before Baptism .... 254 
“« « Identical with Spirit of God 240 
1 «¢ ‘Influence of in Prayer .... 284 
6 « not Perceived by Con- 
95 SCIOUSNESS.......+.-+- --. 246 
94; “s « Office, Work of -)---asseeeene 
95 se « - Person Of. ssccsseeee +e 235 
88 « 866 | Resistance tos... ze 
95)  «  Wortkof...2 2, 
95 | Honesty, Duty of ......... 403 
95 | Hooker on Law........+.+-+2eee0ee e+. 137 
95 llope a Fruit of Regeneration ........ 262 
88 | Hopkins (S.) . = 6, slaie » ahaa 0 etaiaia tae eta ee 
83 | Household Baptism sas ones we. 828 
91 | Houses, Economy in ......... Rcd -. 409 
101 | Humanity of Christ.............. - 190 
102 | Human Nature, Essential Elements of. 120 


96 | Hume’s Argument against Miracles .. 
93 | Husbands, Duties ot .......... 
95) Hutter (L. 
95 | Ignorance a Result of Sin....... 
iAdckoyat, Use of ......... Decies 
91 | Agora ploy: sci +- cn = astesia seen ane 


88 Immaculate Conception of Jesus ..... 
27 © Many) <- 32% 
95 Aes Condens by Con- 
95)|, SCIENCE). «,:2.,:)...000 ake 
Imputation Of Sin ..vceneenene 
189 « «© Theory of 
405 Incarnation of Christ as a Revelation. 
. 410 «Effect on Higher 
Nature........ 
412 ae ac “ Effect on Lower 
Nature. |..66 06. 
416 ss gre Theory Of TP aaaue 
se “ “cc Confirm- 
220 edie. 
Infant Baptism, Relation to Baptismal 
315 | Regeneration ..........+.0++-2+ceeene 
186 | Infants, Relation to Atonement....... 
21 | Infinite|Senies......... “okie senses 
Infinity Capable of Proof. 
* ~ Caution in Treatment of...... 
Inspiration of Bible Different from 
that Given to Ordinary Christians .. 


Inspiration, Human Side of ........... 

131 Nature and Extent of.. 
362 ac Promised to Apostles and 
their Associates ....... 
“ As Promised to Apostles 
363 and Associates made 
364 them Infallible Teachers 
169 ae Theory of......... eee Sl, 

26 | Intermediate State ............ 


70 | Interpretation, False 
26 | Intuition, Moral . 

Irving (Edward), Theory of the Incar- 

MACON asco 2's ae See ee Einisies 

26 | Israelites, Sabbath-Keeping of........ 

James, Authorship of Epistle of ...... 


see e ween ne 


369 


205 
290 
70 


| 


ol oe ale Sa a ee 


a 


a 


én 


or 


Index. 


James, on Deity of Christ ...........-. 181 
Jansenius (O.)........-.--... Ye «a. 22 
Jesus Christ, Doctrines of.........-... 57 
Belief of Disciples of.... 655 

a oT ALES Se ee eee 54 

= se. Sntallible-=-- 5. ~.-- 53, 66 

Ke «« Manner of Teaching .... 4 

= Va MRA eles al: on. qsdee ne sean 59 

a < Moral Character of...... 56 

= = Predictions of Rululte.- 58 

io «« — Proofs of Infaliibility . 55 

Ke Human Nature Inspired........ > 206 


4 = not Evil. - 204 

se Was his Life Vicarious? ....... 227 

“ Son of SirachonO.T.Canon.. 74 
Jews did not demand Baptism of 

Children 


John of Damascus. ................--++ 19 
«on Deity of Christ .............. 185 
“« the Baptist as Revealer......... 231 

“te af Belonged to New 
Dispensatijon .... 333 

Ci « — Belonged to Old Dis- 
ensation .......- 330 

Sys 48 “« did not Baptize in 
Name of Trinity. 331 

aes | ae “« hisBaptism thesame 
as Christian .. 331, 333 
Josephus on Canon of O. T. ........-.. 74 
Jude, Authorship of Sa of. 70 
« on Deity of Christ............... 181 
Judgment, Last eee ecct SEE pa 354 

Suet upon Charac- 

“ “ ates upon Circum- 

SIG OS on nance ee 261 

s “ Christians take partin 355 

« «© Relation to Intermedi- 
ate State -.......... 347 
« « Wiehteous - 22.2... 6.2. 57 
- SENG Ean cae ba soe 358 
Judges, Duties of ......... Rees eee ce 414 
Jurymen, “ “.. eae inate ole oat SE 
SURE SEUANS Soo enec codes eos - seeceemere BLE 
Justice, Duty of.. 2ee ce eet ene ac ole: 
Justification a Fact....... beostebeeree= 263 
and ard Gn po soenes on ae 264 
Os Punishment ......... 265 
iasihor Tee eee ticee PS 266 
= Complete ................ 265 
Se Condition of ........ .... 268 
os Continuous .............. 265 

te Doctrine of Papal 


CHET SET Ses eee Bry 


oe Reasonab) ness. of ‘the 
£ DRGCEEW eo aaicwas co aes 
Kahnis (K.A.).... e-ecee - 2s eecee 


kav dtkov, Use in Acts ii., 46..... 
Kenosis, a Theory of the Incarnation. 196 


Knowledge, Ethical Imperfect...... +. 373 
af Increased by Church Life. 287 

eee of Gospel necessary to Re- 
generation ............. + 256 

= Sources of Open to In- 


SUIKCHe MET noon cdeccoeces S 
kijpto¢ as Applied to Christ..... 
Labor and Capital ................-..0% 405 

=” stn the Good of Others Bene- 


a TOE ts Good of Others Organ- 
- ized and Stimulated by 
Church Life......5....0..s2... 288 


aise P ICE NE ane ace animale a sania oka aoe 
ME SKeIOL Wire’. ...- <>< == 
Last Things, Doctrine of 
Law, Relatioa to Ground of Right.... 370 
Laws cok God adapted to Condition of a 
“ should be Few and Plain........ 413 
Leathes on Unbelief of Thomas....... 188 
Legisl:: tors. Duties of ....-............. 413 
Leo, Theory of the lucarnation ....... 196 
Ale habeas eee - 407 
Liddon .Canon) on Purpose of God.... 97 
Life, Christian, depends on the Spirit ae 
s« Duration of Human............- 
“ Spiritual Blessedness ........... 138 
“<e - Union a Ged: ---.-. 1H 
Lightfovt on Baptism................. 314 
Litton (E. A.) on Union with Christ... 272 
“‘ Logos”’ used by John and Philo..... 187 
Lord's Day devoted to Religious Serv- 
NOG ace ie pees pena 
es “© does not Reston Authority 
of Ghureht=o-.ceps sane 290 
= «© Duty of Keeping .......... 289 
se oe ae es ae Rests on 
Exampleof the Apostles. 290 
Sh «© Manner of Keeping ....... 291 
« «© not Like sny Other Day... 289 
ss «Prohibition of Labor on... 414 
a © Relation to Sanctification. 292 
ss Prayer not a Complete Model... 279 
« ce Paraphrase of............ 27 
Supper a Church Rite ....... 
«< Administration of. 
< = Elementsof........ 
“ = External Rite of. 
= = (iy eee ee 
s&s = Institution of............ 
ee Relation to Baptism 
WG TE) eekemee toc eke Pode ote S set Beer cece 313 
Love affected by External Relations . 384 
«a Fruit of Regeneration......... 262 
«« does not include Moral appreha- 
LC SE RRR EE E.R Ee 
« toGad, Duty of -..° ..-2---... 2c. 368 
« « “ Measure Demanded..... Te) 
De Ge ee Oe e. 10 
OG a SS ES ee ae SES 
Luther (M.° on Union with Christ . 21 
Magnanimity, Duty of............. 402 
Man, Anatomical Structure of ..-...... 118 
a Product of Mind......... Sk ae 
bey He SG tet ee SS eee 118 
«Endless Existence of ...... -- 13 
“Moral Constitution of.... --- 15 
“« no ClaimonGod............. 257, 266 
“ Pathological Characteristics of.. 118 
«« Physiological Peculiarities of ... 118 
6. Sinfnilness OF. 5-6 0602222 o2-c-ccce 133 
‘© Unregenerate will not Choose 
Sulpa tions ees ketenes 260 
Man’s Claim on God for Regeneration. 267 
«Constitution from God......... +9 
« Nature a Means of Revelation. 231 
Mansel on the Sense of Dependence... 39 
Mark, Office of........... 7 
Marriage, Design of ..... - 391 
Desirable ..........- . 392 
L iT Gis eeeer tes toe eas 392 
Ce with Unbelievers ........... 393 
Martensen (H.)..............0.- 25 
Masters, Duties to Servants... 398 
Misberrilignh-c- eos osc aoe ee-o 27 
Matter a Product of Mind............. 30 


Meditation Strengthens the Affec- 
tions..... Someta coccee owe nccccveccceace 331 


434 

Meetings of A CHUTCH: sive) (os aisceiseet ene we 304 
Melanc thon (P.) cocese eecececcantioccen 20 
Melehior Ganug vec dnat ec cnaieenaes 5p 22 

Members, Church, atone not 
Transferable... 303 
¢ as Duties of......... 385 

«“ ue Exclusion and Re- 
ception of ...... 2 

‘ a Gree Immorality 

CC Kg Mutual Relation 
Olsen sites 302, 385 

Ue ae Responsible for 
Discipline ..... 304 
Memorial, the Lord’s Supper a........ 335 
Men all not Equally Sinful............ 144 


Mental Powers adapted to Endless 


PBEXU STON CO! prides iaeicix ela wlorsiaavea aia ats 2 
Mental lowers, Cultivation of ........ 382 
Messiathas Divine fotieeweens sen cne cine 175 
NPOSSTE NCEE iis awe: «ale ot Wintela nila sd stecaiatersinrolera 25 
uevavoéw, Frequency of use............ 224 
peTavolra “ CORES CY einai a starred 224 
Mey OTLON | eh OU Ayah ie ceraeia ioe siete th =imeie 186 

OE BROAN e tied fd perniete apes orahcins sian 183 
Mi hese Two Classes of Believers 

TAL ateoie tsten-etnlatae eloone ten che raat amr ein tana 349 
Mind, Action of Trustwor hy....... 12, 135 

«; Cardinal Powers of ............. 119 
Miracles of OHUISE Ps acmoaes ataee tae 59 

* Double Purpose of. 60 

66 Ke « Testimony of Evan- 
PPLStS eres ees 65 

“ do not violate Law of Cause 
aBaUPiTe Ch asa aeeses 64 
ae Hume's Argument peace. 62 
a NOL! MYST nse. sm hese cients 66 


es Objections to Occurence of.. 61 


ae aa “© Valid also vs. 
hevelation. 64 
ss IPUgpOSE Off Sccmise sacs ot eccn 63 
Misery of Wicked will Increase....... : 360 
Missions, How to be Prosecuted....... 306 
Mohler Ch. Als 8 cc's ab oe stivase coat seees 26 


Monastic Life unfavorable to Sanctifi- 
cation 


«Character 


ae S Sources of . 
“Judgment, Limits of. ...5.).0.5 
“«¢ Nature of God the Ground of 
AUPE nes awa tere cee 368 
Morality, Bad not Taught in Dible..... 86 


“ not Identical with Religion . 381 
Moral Powers adapted to Endless Ex- 
istence 
Mosaic Sacrifices illustrated the Atone- 
ment of Christ..... 
not for Violations of 
Moral Law ......... 216 


216 


“ee “ 


MoSHeim ((ictlas) Fawcal ete anomie’ tees eee 
Nature as a Means of Revelation ..... 
Ke of God, Could it have been 
DiMeETentit in aaatelve cok sar cae 

Neander on Union with Christ ........ 
Nestorius, Theory of the Incarnation. 195 


New Birth ialejutoloisiarcialeieueinetavateee sets paictae 242, 273 
New Testament, Authors of ........... 48 
64 Cheracvet of Writ- 
% Pe ee % 


D te of Books of . 46 
aan Credibility 
45 


Index. 


New Te tament, Objections ‘nst 
e Inspiration of...... 
“ “ Vinee Inculcated ‘ 
“ “ Writers did not 
HRs « covccotaanamely ae 
Niemeyer (H, A.)..35 Jace anise ee 26 
Nicodemus, Christ’ 3. Conversation 
With 2.02). 206 eviews sins cielo op 
Obedience of « hrist to the Father re, : 368 
ue to Christ Cultivated by 
Church Life... 286 
ut _to Conscience .... 
GS “ God Demanded. 


ld “ Government .. . 
Observance of Lord’s Supper, Fre- 
quency Of .cxs.. <u ee sights © elo sle'aiete 
Oehler :G. F. ).. pebeesan 
Office, Church, Qualifications for eecee 
Officers, Church, Authority of......... 
“6 Duties of 
« Executive, Duties bai waeeiee sea 
oS Respect to mn alanine 
Old Testament endorsed by “Christ 
and his Apostles 73, — 
I- Spired Wemmcumecue 
Proofs of I:ispiration. 
Time of Wri ing..... 
Well cnet at Time 
of Christi. oe ss ccanen 
Optimism ............... ave sa cee 
Order in Churches ........ +... 
** of Universe due to Mind 
Ordinances of Church, Two........... 
Ordinat.on of Ministers from Other 


See te ee ewes 


66 “ 
“ “ec 
“é “é 
sé “cc 


Denomnations.......... 311 

“ Validity of...... wos ccc cdUly OO 

“ Value of ...... aiaieln atom hare id . 311 
Organization of Churches.. 


Paley on Ground of Right.. 
Tahyyeveoia 
mavraTa evn . 


Ban theism jer inc.00 sb ces caeeieiee 28 
Pardoning Power, Exeicise of. 415 
Parents, Duties of ...........- 394 
IPAYVOUSHD 5.0% otic cleanin alee se eoeee BOT 
Paschal Lamb a Type of Christ ....... 335 
Pasto.s, Charges against ........ eee 304 
WG Duties of «...-.- wets os.6 sess BOO 
Ms Selection of . aceses B10 
Paul on Deity of Chrisb:..-42snnaaal 182 
Pedo-Baptists, Rela ion to Christian 
Baptism) |. = oa sa: -\cie aie eee eee «. 343 
Pelagian Theory of f Imputation of Sin. 144 


Penalty of Sin a State of Restraint 


and Suffering ...... . 165 
“J ss Designated as eath . 164 
ae «Everlasting Punish- 
ment .<.canemen veeuce 165 
sé « «) Wact of \o..ac-aeeneee 152 
a «| « Gehenna and “Lake of 
ace i BHA icc Ss on 
ae eerie od’s anguage to 
Ada ne. B wee. 162 
“s s¢ 6  WdealOf os cnnnianeeees 151 
ub “« «Language of John the , 
Baptist .... . scene 
sc G60 a6 atuh Jex ties of Be- 
Bw pet eecensen seen ee 167 
af asi ek seripiiral “Kecounts 
«6 a Time of Beginning ... 162 
ne “« « Two Elements of...... 167 
as « «© ‘What is It? ssc. a wae Bee 
Pentecost, Baptisms on........ dee cs oat 


Communion after.......... 341 


Index. 


Perdition ....... Seroooseeck ase rah 159 
MEEN DGG) stot ce coe tewle vee 26 
Perseverance of Saints. ceeapecee 299 
Personality of Holy Spirit........ 235 
Peter, Authorship of 2:1 Epistle.. 70 
«on Deity of Christ......... - 181 
“ of Lombardy .......-.- eas 
Peter’s Definition of Baptism - 325 
PhilippiF. A.)..........-.---... 26 
TloTEvw, Frequency = LR Sie sece 224 
TIGTIC Oe ee ee 224 
PL: ycean Theory of oe of Sin. 147 
Polity, Definition of 30 
Polygamy sia notte ss: 
Prayer an Exercise - eae 
UT" SG ae | Bee eee ee ee eee 
x a by Physical Equiva- 
BINS eee se- Seek 2 
«6 a by Physical Equiva- 
ents not to be De- 
nied ..... sagt Sega 284 
«at Lord’s Supper. . - 334 
Boe Ditty Of. .5-.s- 281 
« Efficacy of ..... . 281 
=) dor Sanctification . Ho . 281 
* ~ from the Spirits... 5.. 2.52.5... 275 
ORS CT) ee rere 79 
«Offered m Name of Christ..... 279 
ze = PAV Ge eee c eee ee acne 279 
“ Public, Manner of .....- - 317 
“ Suis es Ssasi oes 280 
“ ae a 376 
ie WOCcal. 280 
Predestination in Relation to Respon- 
oO SOUT Sle S882 See SS SS S45 SARS eos 134 
Premillenial Advent, Arguments 
AGVAMSE . .--- -- owe cee eee ewe sewn 351 
Preserv MRION Pty Gee ee cs et cece salon 102 
of Life on Lord’s Day... 292 
as “ the Saints, Means of. 297 
Pressensé ae) on the ‘Logos’ of John 
SRRIETION oes ue aeons nlun weaves 187 
Price on Ground of Right........- cope oul 
PTUMOTONUNTS . o 5... <2. - 5... ewe ened seen 398 
Probability, Authority of ............. 13 
Probation, none in M Male Statel.-. -- 348 
Promise of Inspiration to Apostles 
EES Sr Se eee 67 
Prophecy, False not in Bible -. 86 
Propitiation Se Sache ope 207 
“ ected by Death of 
GRISE-. os. cncee estes 217 
> effected for Whom? ..... 228 
= Included Death .......... 215 
as through Sacrifice ........ 214 
PPTORer MOM GletrMtE) so eser as tee paces tees. 414 
Proy idence Bl GOW rs ae an des canoe oc 102 
« «Designations of ... 104 
— e. @ (Parivar ef ..... 103 
BS ee BF rit stash) De ee 104 
Psalms, Generali Character of ......... 82 
ac Independent Productions..... 82 
as Quotations in N.T............. 82 
Psychology of Man............. -e-- 120 
Ler SITET) S58 See Se eee -. 160 
G of all not the Same...... 359 
sc Vicarious Included in 
Sacrifice............--+- 216 


Paps of God, Ends of .. 98 
“to Honor God in Co t.375, 376 

Quakers on Hereditary Depravity..... 143 

Gee reales for the Study of The- 


SLOES, Aa cbSR Sissciseeeoe SL GES soe oceee 14 


435 


‘Quenstedt CIA Mes. - eos hs Ue eee ces 21 
Reason, Capabilities of Human....... 13 

Human’ Gimited -.4.:.2-..52.< 13 
iechaptian of John’s Disciples ....331, 332 


Recognition of Ministers from other 
IDENOMDN AMD Nace sae wee saee nse oe 311 

Redemption, Doctrine of 242 

Reformers of Government, Duties of. 415 


Regeneration a Creation.............. 243 
Antecedents of......... 256 
= a Progress from Dark- 
ness to Light 
= a Resu. rection. 
“ SPU TERAIUST ODE ates nal a we 
- Bapismal-~..s.2. . oc os. 
oe Definition of ........... 
2: does not Sanctify 
“ first Fruits of .. 
g Instantaneous . = 
sé Method of....-.......<. 
sé Nettie Obe eure secet ee 
“ Precedes new Aflec- 
TIOUS = 455655 oka dae ee 245 
Lh Symbolized by Baptism oa 
a Truth a Means of...... 247 
Religion (Christian), Consistency of 
MPCLEMES Oke Gn ose ewece oven -< sens ees 11 
Religion (Christian), Doctrines drawn 
from Scriptures. 11 
xe Definition of ......... 9 


= Separate from State . 
Religious Service on Lord's Day 


Remission, Baptism unto pests 5hstee 
Repentance, Re gt thea ec laces 
Definition of Se aes 263, 331 
£ Fruits meet for .......-... 332 
oS notafter Last Judgment. 361 
* Prerequisite to Baptism . 331 


Responsibility Modified by Imperfec- 


tion of Knowledge ..............+... 37. 
Resurrection, Figurative Use of....... 350 
of Christ Symbolized by 
Baptism ...... 
a of the Dead i 
Ly 54 d D5) CESS oe oe eS ee are eas 


Revelation, a Supernatural not Impos- 
TUDE aco lA Soe ace = se ee SE 
Revelation, a Supernatural not Im- 


RING Dosen kowdoneeas ashe esse 
Revelation,a Supernatural not In- 
CECHIBlOa. sadencit-s6 2 one an 
a BY CMrISH. somes Seen - = 231, 373 
2 in Last Judgment......... 57 
= (Supernatural) Metho'! of. 44 
- through Natural Affec- 
tions . 372 
a through Natural Relations 372 
& & the Apostles -.... 232 
ae ac) Bible... 232, 373 
Listen sere) G1) 30 Sas = ee SS 26 
Rid PelyPnGS)) 5-2 x0 seen Coeeloce cee. ones 23 
Right, ' Original Ground of............. 367 
« — Supreme Rule of .............-- 371 
Righteous, Resurrection of the . 352 
Righteousness not the Same as Beney- 
GIPNER Coes. sees eak ones kee me p~ on ae 208 
Robinson (Dr.) on Gazi 
at SO CUADUG aca nn otis case 


Sacred Writers, Duties Taught ‘by Se: 
oa Language concerning 

Penalty of Sin..... 

Salvation, Doctrine of .......... Ss ale 171 


436 


Salvation, Offered to All on Pa ber 


SRGUMIN snide asim rindi ae we ele 
Sanctification... ................3- wie or 
am Ascribed to Spirit...... 276 
£ AMENOM Obs scccsaciscs ce ike 
G Certainty of petsc- so. ts 95 25 | 
ue Completed at Death . * 395 
ae Wieans(OLs... 6-0 enna ee 276 | 
gs Nature of |. 5./...sce 
io of Individual. 
Chief End?.......... 17 
Ag PEMIOU Oh... sotee eee cans 292 
sé Progressive ......... 292, 374 
DAUAN nde wckes ae ceaach ena cammeeeineaie 116 
hehaif, Phillip, on Incarnation........ 201 
Schenkel (G35 a Oe Se Gd ain S 26 
Sehleienmacher (P.) 20. <osncece cee ve en 26 
Sct es eects ain Soto mecserewin 25 
Schoeberlein on the Trinity ........... 91 
SRW Vee. thea opis peeerila Sass ook aeiebiod 25 
Science, Progress of not Retarded by 
a Belief in Inspiration............... 83 
Scientific Errors not Taurhtin Bible. 85 
Seclusion sometimes Beneficial........ 284 
Second Advent of Christ .............. 349 
Self-love, Excessive...........0..sce20e 378 
Selt-seeking, the Proper Measure of.. 378 
Servants, Duties of ...................- 399 
Seventh Day, Sanctificati.n of........ 290 
Sin, AdvantaresioOf a. stant sage cies 169 
““ a Means of Sanctification ........ 277 
** Christians free from Power of at 
DG ata sec sioniacls eeelncteea 
“© Deficiency of Love. 5 
& /Meeree Obac.cunes senmeoss Wav arceceep 
“© Extent Of... .0s.s 
** Imputation of...... 


** Inordinate Desire .. 

«© May be Eternal .... 

«< Nature of........... ose 
Kf RONGILY/ Ghiascisaiscseideins e's eisi-tents 
* Preference of Self to God 
« Reality of 
“ Results of Z 
« Time of Beginning of Penalty.. 


ACS CIMVETSAl ee ws ate e eee eee ee , 143 
« Want of Conformity to Law...... 136 
Sins of Men Borne! y Christ .......... 219 
Singing at Lord’s Supper.............. 334 
DSISLEDS, DUBIES OF Wl ciien acto nce eens ass aie 397 
Slavery, Scriptural View of........... 400 
sleep. used for Death...........c...-- 347 
Smith on Ground of Right............ 370 
SOCIAL RelAGONS oo 2 - vince = ane Aenean Ee 
143 


Socinians ou Heredita: y Depravity.... 
Son of Man ....... Sere setae ae ate aa 


Soul 2 
“ 5 
Siu Meee Sepoponcu os abenp ac eae eoad 6 Ome 121 

*«* Different from Body........-..-. 154 
« Relation to Endless Existence.. 154 
Spirits of Departed Bodiless .......... 346 
Conscious........ 346 

Spiritual Discernment a Fruit of Re- 
PENCTANOH. ss -> 20 cc seueie 261 

ae Susceptibility adapted to 
Endless Existence ......... 124 


Sprinkling does not Symbolize Purifi- 
cation 


SEaaer bank. pene se emtemme ees ane arson sts 21 
UO yee ME a ae 4 So oe Pood soesodrs 25 
Shrike. 63 Serer Gateosteos cekecreeteete 405 
Subjects; Duties OF -fi cise r sc. sce cen 411 
Suffering to be Relieved on Lord's 
DEN age cad so eonSs¢ se scaccats onesc 292 
Suffrage, Extension to Women.......-. 416 


Index. 


ovvEldnole . 1s. .cvecese tba neleeeeee 
Supporters of Government..... 
Symbol, the Lord’s Supper a... «. 335 


Sympathy, Duty of oS 
Synergistic Theory of Regeneration .. 27 

Synopiics, Language concerning 
Deity of ‘Christ... 20.22. v<teeeeni nee 
Table Rappings .... ocecvececseapes HME 
Taxation, Direct . ocnencenecauell ane 
= Exemption ‘from... a we 413 
id Indirect. « ccectpesgscecas Sie 
Taxes, Duty of Paying <-> ee sve 412 
Taylor. N. W..)..«.. -\:.sesmsiesqeneee nee 
Theology, Apoloyetic eee csaccecce 10 
Bad, not in Bible .... 
as Biblical. -essaneeen 10 

ae Cau necessary in Study 
BP eo 14 

“ Christian, Advantages of 

limiting its Doctrines to 

those Drawn from the 
Scriptures/--<. cece ens eeeenee 
ae Comparative....... 10 
a Definition Of <s<. -cesccenenp eee 
st Polemical ./.-scssiesanien eee 
“ Qualifications for Stu:iy of. 14 
we Syst matic Boe cic coseccee 9 

J Presupposes 


What? t.oi.-s 9 
Theological Questions of the Day, Rel- 


ative Importance ...............- ie | | 
Thirty-nine Articles on Hereditary Le- 
PIaviby 2... =~ 0» snes maeolen a 
Thomas Aquinas. . 22, .0ce=eeeeeeeeee 19 
b on Natural Order.. 32 
THOR, Unbelief of-..-See-ee BAM aOo 2 * 382 
Thomasius (Gi, ccncec mtd erase 26 
a tiieory of Incarna- 
tion. . 199 
Topics of this Manual 17 
Torment... i. 5. .«-- = ss sateen ++. 160 
Transubstantiation, Deck Of)... cree 
Travel, Economy in. ences Uneaten senna? 
Trench On AOU .... .<.000.=/ eee . 314 
Trent, Council of on baptismal Regen- 
eration). <-2 asco . 252 
a «on Hereditary De- 
Pravity-<.. sce ences eae 
Trichotomy «... ..02+..0s=sss eee 20 
‘Trinity, the) -c... seme -.--91, 238, 239, 276 
Troas, Communion at..............5 cae ee 
‘ruth a Means of Sanctification ...... 278 
‘© Relation to Holy Spirit in Sanc- 
tification ........::.ssueneen eee 278 
« Relation to Holy Spirit in Re- 
generation......... 247, aan 250, 251 
Truthfulness, Duty of .. see. seeeee «401 
How Violated. 401 
Turretin (K.) 3... .<..soseneae 21 
‘ype, the Lord’s Supper a.. - 335 
Types, Nature of......... a0 > oaths! ae 
Ullmann on Conscience ........ alti cole re 
Unbelievers, Fin 1 State of............ 358 
as in Middle State.......... 347 
Uniformity of Nature not Opposed to 
Answers to Prayer.....-. ......s.: 
Union with CHYriSt. 3.5.3. 03.6 See 269, 270 
«“ a Means of Preser- » 
< clei eye ahsle aie nfolale loa ate Seer 298 
192 
8&3 
Seeamee -- 118 
Unostentation in Benevolence. eons eee a = 


Van Osterzee (J. J.)..--. ++. -050ssssmeee 
Vegetable World a Product of Min@.. 33 


Index. 437 


Versions, Correctness of not Required tural Commands Permanent ........ 390 
by Inspiration ........++-+.e2e esse eee SS) NVOOUS (las) kas westeeinee tenemteleraieisi-inle si, 128 
Victory of ene Christian due te the Word, the as Revealer ........ 231 
. Spirit. . . 275 “ “© Agent in Creation.......... 100 
Voluntary ‘Ac , , Definition of - - 151 Work of Christ finished at Death . 225 
Wardlaw oi) Sane a tere vias) ED FS «Ground of Justitica- 
Vans (Ub) ado eadercoaadogondagdesanseice 25 WOW asso soos quaknbass 267 
Wesley (J.). na gnetidamishis ss oo cnep ese anges Piel e  0 MEREOlYSDIib seeciisee se cic cies viele 241 
Westmins: er Confession on Hereditary Working of God on Sabbath .......... 291 
WIE PVAVILY) <seliiniela s)nieln1+\0)enj-iee/dieamisise'nie 142 | World, Love of the Root of Sin....... 140 
Wicked, Final State of ................ «« Resurrection at End of ........ 352 
ss Resurrection of Worship, SOCIE Eee ects aan owe ciaseiniteues 279 
Will as Source of Moral Character... 126 Social Benefits of ........ 287, 377 
*« of God Revealed in Nature ...... 371 st Kee OONGUCEION. sreiea amie ee 6 377 
ce the Ruleof Right. ....... 371 ce Cie DSR) ie oer coce nC aen 287 
Vine 65 18) ocd see sab Ouoee ean eod Ave acne 205 G as Mentetned acter tes 
NUS PERT ULES OL opciainiciv’e ebist cm oains verses 394 DAES os se csieeemlonian 
Women not Eligible to Ministry....... 386 | Writers on Phsactt Theology ...... ati 
Women not Eligible to Ministry, Scrip- Zwingle on Union with Ciarist......... 278 


at 


Mee 


ty 


MZevSZvc0d 
Li AI 


